Contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography, a possible candidate for the diagnosis of vesicoureteral reflux in children and adolescents; a systematic review and meta-analysis. Issue 1 (February 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yousefifard, Mahmoud; Toloui, Amirmohammad; Rafiei Alavi, Seyedeh Niloufar; Madani Neishaboori, Arian; Ahmadzadeh, Koohyar; Ghelichkhani, Parisa; Safari, Saeed; Abbasi, Arash; Ataei, Neamatollah; Hosseini, Mostafa
• Is Part Of: Journal of pediatric urology. Volume 18:Issue 1(2022)
• Page Start: 61
• Page End: 74
• Publication Date: 2022-02
• Subjects: Onography -- VUR -- Diagnostic value -- Children; Pediatric urology -- Periodicals; Urologic Diseases -- Periodicals; Urogenital Diseases -- Periodicals; Urologic Surgical Procedures -- Periodicals; Child; Infant; Urologie pédiatrique -- Périodiques; Appareil urinaire -- Maladies -- Périodiques; Pédiatrie; Urologie; Pediatric urology; Périodique électronique (Descripteur de forme); Ressource Internet (Descripteur de forme); Electronic journals; Periodicals; Electronic journals; 618.926
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jpurol.2021.10.023
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1477-5131

Abstract

Summary: Introduction: The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography (ceVUS) in the diagnosis of vesicoureteral reflux (VUR) is still a subject of dispute. Objective: Assessing the diagnostic value of ceVUS in VUR, performing a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: An extensive search on Medline, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science databases was conducted by the end of 2020. The inclusion criteria were studies on the diagnostic value of ceVUS for VUR. Two independent researchers summarized the included articles and the findings were reported as area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Results: Finally, the data of 36 articles were included in the present meta-analysis (2768 children). The VUS assessment showed that 1297 of the cases were true positives, 3661 were true negatives, 398 were false positives and 169 were false negatives. The AUC, sensitivity and specificity of ceVUS with the first-generation contrast agent in the diagnosis of VUR in children and adolescents were obtained as 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95, 0.98), 0.92 (95% CI: 0.86, 0.96) and 0.94 (95% CI: 0.95, 0.98), respectively. Moreover, AUC, sensitivity and specificity of ceVUS with the second-generation contrast agent were 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95, 0.98), 0.93 (95% CI: 0.86, 0.97) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.86, 0.95). Conclusion: The findings of the present study showed that diagnostic value of ceVUS with both first-generation and second-generation contrast agents for VUR, is in an excellent range. Although it seems that ceVUS may be applied as a radiation-free alternative to imaging techniques such as VCUG, the presence of 3% of false negatives in this test is a limitation. Since the lack of punctual management of VUR is associated with serious renal complications in children, future studies are recommended to be focused on the evaluation of the Benefit-risk evaluation of ceVUS.