Pop-off mechanisms as renoprotective mediators in children with posterior urethral valves: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pop-off mechanisms are potential pressure-relieving mediators in patients diagnosed with posterior urethral valves (PUV). This systematic review aimed to synthesize the existing evidence regarding the protective effect of pop-off mechanisms on renal function in children with PUV. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature that involved an extensive search in the main databases of the medical bibliography. Three independent reviewers selected the relevant articles. Methodological quality was rated using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale index. We used random meta-analyses to compare different outcomes (serum creatine, Nadir serum creatinine, and Chronic Kidney Disease) between children with PUV and pop-off mechanisms and those with PUV without pop-off mechanisms. RESULTS: 10 studies with data from 896 participants were included in this review. Seven articles reported serum creatinine values for each group and 3 of them found significant differences between groups. The random-effects meta-analysis for serum creatinine showed significant lower mean (diff = -52.88 μmol/L [95 % CI -73.65 to -32.11]) in the group of children with pop-off mechanisms, and the random-effects meta-analysis for Nadir serum creatinine showed a marginally significantly lower mean in the group of children with pop-off mechanisms (diff = -12.00 μmol/L [95 % CI -24.04 to 0.04]). The random-effect meta-analysis for Chronic Kidney Disease resulted in a significant risk reduction for the group of children with pop-off mechanisms (odds ratio = 0.48 [95 % CI 0.23 to 0.98]). CONCLUSIONS: Children with PUV and pop-off mechanisms show better renal function and lower risk of Chronic Kidney Disease than those with PUV without pop-off mechanisms suggesting these mechanisms may act as renoprotective mediators. The high heterogeneity between studies in the assessment of renal function and long-term outcomes calls for a cautious interpretation of these findings. Future studies that stratify by different types of pop-off mechanisms and use standardized metrics, such as Nadir creatinine, are needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".