↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Dimercaptosuccinic acid scan or ultrasound in screening for vesicoureteral reflux among children with urinary tract infections

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
82 Mendeley
Title
Dimercaptosuccinic acid scan or ultrasound in screening for vesicoureteral reflux among children with urinary tract infections
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010657.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nader Shaikh, Russell B Spingarn, Stephanie W Hum

Abstract

There is considerable interest in detecting vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) because its presence, especially when severe, has been linked to an increased risk of urinary tract infections and renal scarring. Voiding cystourethrography (VCUG), also known as micturating cystourethrography, is the gold standard for the diagnosis of VUR, and the grading of its severity. Because VCUG requires bladder catheterisation and exposes children to radiation, there has been a growing interest in other screening strategies that could identify at-risk children without the risks and discomfort associated with VCUG. The objective of this review is to evaluate the accuracy of two alternative imaging tests - the dimercaptosuccinic acid renal scan (DMSA) and renal-bladder ultrasound (RBUS) - in diagnosing VUR and high-grade VUR (Grade III-V VUR). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, and the Cochrane Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies from 1985 to 31 March 2016. The reference lists of relevant review articles were searched to identify additional studies not found through the electronic search. We considered published cross-sectional or cohort studies that compared the results of the index tests (DMSA scan or RBUS) with the results of radiographic VCUG in children less than 19 years of age with a culture-confirmed urinary tract infection. Two authors independently applied the selection criteria to all citations and independently abstracted data. We used the bivariate model to calculate summary sensitivity and specificity values. A total of 42 studies met our inclusion criteria. Twenty studies reported data on the test performance of RBUS in detecting VUR; the summary sensitivity and specificity estimates were 0.44 (95% CI 0.34 to 0.54) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.68 to 0.86), respectively. A total of 11 studies reported data on the test performance of RBUS in detecting high-grade VUR; the summary sensitivity and specificity estimates were 0.59 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.72) and 0.79 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.87), respectively. A total of 19 studies reported data on the test performance of DMSA in detecting VUR; the summary sensitivity and specificity estimates were 0.75 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.81) and 0.48 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.57), respectively. A total of 10 studies reported data on the accuracy of DMSA in detecting high-grade VUR. The summary sensitivity and specificity estimates were 0.93 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.98) and 0.44 (95% CI 0.33 to 0.56), respectively. Neither the renal ultrasound nor the DMSA scan is accurate enough to detect VUR (of all grades). Although a child with a negative DMSA test has an < 1% probability of having high-grade VUR, performing a screening DMSA will result in a large number of children falsely labelled as being at risk for high-grade VUR. Accordingly, the usefulness of the DMSA as a screening test for high-grade VUR should be questioned.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 82 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Master 10 12%
Other 8 10%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Other 20 24%
Unknown 16 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Psychology 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 24 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 December 2018.
All research outputs
#4,246,979
of 14,536,867 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,199
of 10,988 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,062
of 261,401 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#94
of 140 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,536,867 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,988 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 261,401 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 140 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.