Table 2. Synopsis included studies.

					Proportion positive of tests performed
Study	Pathway	Population	Sample size	Prevalence infr.obstr.	US	VCUG	UCS	Other
1. Mate 2003	1	Case-mix	244	0.02 (4/244)	n/244	4/4		4/244 (VUS/TPUS) 1 , 5
2. Duran 2009	1	UTI/suspected for VUR	99	0.02 (2/99)	n/99	2/4		4/99 (VUS) 1
3. Goldman 2000	1	UTI <8 weeks	45	0.02 (1/45)	12/45	1/45
4. Oliveira 2000	1	Hydronephrosis	103	0.14 (14/103)	n/103	14/103
5. Ahmadzadeh 2007	1	UTI	26	0.08 (2/26)	n/26	2/26
6. Berrocal 2005	1	Case-mix suspected forVUR (56% after UTI)	87	0.03 (3/87)	n/87	3/87		3/87 (VUS)1
7. Bosio 2002	2	Hydronephrosis/UTI	100	0.08 (8/100)	n/100	8/8	8/8	n/100 (VCUS)3
8. Kaefer 1997	3	Hydronephrosis	15	0.53 (8/15)	n/15	8/15	8/8
9. Nakamura 2010	3	Persistent nocturnalenuresis	43	0.47 (20/43)	n/43	22/43	20/22	n/22 (Uroflow, CMG, PFS)2
10. Kihara 2008	3	LUTS	37	0.24 (9/37)	n/37	17/37	9/17
11. De Kort 2003	3	Case-mix	65	0.75 (49/65)	n/65	n/65*	49/56	n/65 UDO
12. Chaumoitre 2004	3	Case-mix	123	0.02 (3/123)	n/123	3/123	3/s.c.6
13. Cohen 1994	3	Hydronephrosis	10	0.50 (5/10)	n/10	5/10	4/4	5/10 (TPUS)5
14. Payabvash 2008	4	Unclear	61	0.28 (17/61)	n/61	17/61	17/61	13/61 (MRU)4
15. De Kort 2004	4	Case-mix	72	0.76 (55/72)	n/72	24/72	55/72

¹VUS = voiding ultrasound,

²CMG = cystometrogram, PFS = pressure flow study,

³VCUS = voiding cysto urethrosonography,

⁴MRU = magnetic resonance urography,

⁵TPUS = transperineal ultrasound, s.c. = suspect cases, number unknown.

^*VUDO was performed.

n = number of positive tests unknown.