A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

The efficacy of urinalysis, plain films, and spiral CT in ED patients with suspected renal colic. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study evaluated the effectiveness of urinalysis and plain X-rays compared to helical CT scans for diagnosing renal colic in patients at an emergency department.
  • Of the 138 patients suspected of having kidney stones, only 99 were included in the analysis, revealing that 54 had urinary stones confirmed by CT or by passing the stones.
  • The findings showed that plain films and urinalysis had lower sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing stones compared to helical CT, which was significantly more accurate (sensitivity of 91%).
  • The authors suggest more research is needed to understand the clinical and cost-effectiveness of using helical CT in these cases.

Article Abstract

We determined the diagnostic value of urinalysis and plain films in patients with suspected renal colic presenting to an emergency department (ED). Over a 1-year period, 138 patients presented to the ED during the daytime with suspected renal colic, but for technical reasons the diagnostic modalities used in the study could be completed for only 99 patients, and 34 patients were lost to follow-up. A urinalysis; kidney, ureter, and bladder film; and spiral computed tomography (CT) were performed on each patient. The presence of urinary tract stones was determined by their definite presence on helical CT and/or passage of a stone on clinical follow-up (average follow-up = 3 months). A urinary stone was visualized on spiral CT or passed in the urine in 54 of the patients. Using helical CT findings or passage of a stone as the gold standard, plain radiography had a sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 82%. Urinalysis had a sensitivity of 69% and specificity of 27%. The sensitivity increased to 89% if either test was positive, but the specificity remained low at 27%. The sensitivity and specificity of CT in the diagnosis of urinary stones was 91%. Urinalysis and plain films are much less accurate than helical CT for confirming the diagnosis of acute urolithiasis. Further evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of helical CT should be done to determine its role in the work-up of these patients.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/ajem.2003.50027DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

urinalysis plain
12
plain films
12
suspected renal
12
renal colic
12
patients suspected
8
passage stone
8
sensitivity 69%
8
69% specificity
8
27% sensitivity
8
patients
7

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!