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

Radiology reporting of micturating cystourethrograms (MCUGs): What the paediatric urologists want to know. | LitMetric

Background: Micturating cystourethrograms (MCUGs) are commonly requested to exclude vesicoureteric reflux (VUR) and bladder outlet obstruction (BOO). Useful additional information including timing and bladder volume at the start of reflux, urethral anomalies and post-void drainage can be obtained from the cystograms, but are not routinely reported by radiologists.

Objective: The study aim was to retrospectively review MCUG reports against a proposed reporting proforma, and then re-analyse the effect of the proforma on report quality.

Study Design: A retrospective analysis of paediatric MCUG reports was undertaken from two patient cohorts. Cohorts A (41 reports) and B (51 reports) comprised reports written before (2011-12) and following (2016-17) distribution of the standardised reporting proforma, respectively. Reports were assessed with respect to the parameters outlined on the standardised MCUG reporting proforma, including presence, grade and timing of VUR amongst others. Findings from both cohorts were compared and statistically analysed (p < 0.05 significant) to establish if the proforma influenced the content of reports.

Results: Statistically significant improvements were demonstrated in the reporting of: bladder outline normal/abnormal - reported in 92% after the proforma vs 56% before (p < 0.001); urethra normal/abnormal - 87% vs 68% (p = 0.033); contrast volume instilled - 84% vs 61% (p = 0.011); bladder emptying - 69% vs 17% (p < 0.001). In patients with VUR, reporting of VUR timing - 96% vs 33% (p < 0.001) and VUR grade - 91% vs 40% (p = 0.002) were also significantly improved.

Conclusion: Implementation of a standardised MCUG reporting proforma produced substantial improvements in report quality and consistency, with statistically significant improvements noted in six of seven key features.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jpurol.2020.09.008DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

reporting proforma
12
micturating cystourethrograms
8
cystourethrograms mcugs
8
mcug reports
8
reports
6
radiology reporting
4
reporting micturating
4
mcugs paediatric
4
paediatric urologists
4
urologists background
4

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!