ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2026
Renal doppler ultrasound: comparison of measurements sampled in different anatomical locations.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Renal Doppler ultrasound can be used to predict acute kidney injury and assess venous congestion. There is no consensus on which renal vessels should be used for Doppler sampling. This study compares renal Doppler ultrasound measurements obtained in renal hilar and interlobar arteries and veins in patients recovering from open-heart surgery.This secondary analysis included data from 99 patients who underwent cardiac surgery. Doppler ultrasound was performed on both hilar and interlobar vessels in each kidney and renal venous flow pattern, renal venous stasis index (RVSI), and renal arterial resistive index (RI) were assessed.For renal venous flow pattern Kappa was 84% for hilar vs. interlobar measurements, 63% for hilar measurements on either side, and 77% for interlobar measurements on either side. When comparing RVSI the biases ranged from 0.2% to 4.8%, limits of agreement were consistently wide, and percentage error ranged from 96% to 133%. The comparisons of RI showed biases from 0.1% to 0.4% with limits of agreement consistently narrow. Percentage error ranged from 9.9% to 12.3%In a population of postoperative open-heart cardiac surgery patients, comparable results can be expected when sampling renal venous flow pattern from hilar and interlobar veins. Overall low bias but also low precision can be expected when sampling RVSI in hilar and interlobar veins on either side. In regard to RI, low bias and high precision can be expected when sampling from hilar and interlobar arteries on either side.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.