ReviewJournal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Comparing Outcomes of Reduction versus Nonreduction Pyeloplasty in Children.
Review in Journal of Indian Association of Pediatric Surgeons. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: There is no robust data to support the practice of not reducing the pelvis during laparoscopic/robotic pyeloplasty. Very few authors have compared reduction pyeloplasty (RP) against nonreduction pyeloplasty (NRP). Methods: Databases were searched using the terms: Pyeloplasty AND (reduction vs. no reduction of pelvis) AND outcome to identify all papers pertaining to pyeloplasty outcomes in the pediatric population. Meta-analysis of proportions was carried out using MetaXL 5.3 and an odds ratio plot was constructed using Review Manager (RevMan) Version 5.4. Results: Between 2003 and 2023, 189 abstracts were identified, and 121 articles were selected for full-text review. After excluding those which did not meet the criteria ( Conclusions: In cases with a large renal pelvis (>40-50 mm), one may elect for RP, while in the remaining, one may resort to NRP. Larger randomized controlled trials are necessary to better understand the impact of pelvic reduction on outcomes in pyeloplasty.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.