Literature DB >> 1908216

Renal colic. Utility of the plain abdominal roentgenogram.

A Mutgi1, J W Williams, M Nettleman.   

Abstract

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 85 consecutive symptomatic patients to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of plain abdominal roentgenography (PAR) compared with clinical evaluation alone in diagnosis and treatment of renal colic. With a positive intravenous pyelogram and/or actual stone retrieval used as the gold standard, 72 patients had documented stones. The calculated sensitivity and specificity for PAR were 58% (95% confidence interval, 47% to 69%) and 69% (95% confidence interval, 44% to 94%), respectively. In this population with a stone prevalence of 85%, the positive predictive value of PAR was 91%. A clinical scoring system based on signs and symptoms fared as well as PAR (sensitivity, 73%; specificity, 46%; and positive predictive value, 88%). The strategy of clinical scoring followed by selective use of intravenous pyelography was more cost-effective than strategies using PAR. We conclude that the PAR has low sensitivity and specificity and improves the predictive value only marginally, and its routine use is not cost-effective.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1908216     DOI: 10.1001/archinte.151.8.1589

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-9926


  14 in total

Review 1.  [Imaging techniques and their impact in treatment management of patients with acute flank pain].

Authors:  A Grosse; C A Grosse; J Mauermann; G Heinz-Peer
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2005-10       Impact factor: 0.635

Review 2.  Ureteric colic: new trends in diagnosis and treatment.

Authors:  M Masarani; M Dinneen
Journal:  Postgrad Med J       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 2.401

3.  Diagnostic utility of attenuation measurement (Hounsfield units) in computed tomography stonogram in predicting the radio-opacity of urinary calculi in plain abdominal radiographs.

Authors:  Michael E Chua; Glenn T Gatchalian; Michael Vincent Corsino; Buenaventura B Reyes
Journal:  Int Urol Nephrol       Date:  2012-05-12       Impact factor: 2.370

4.  Automated evidence-based critiquing of orders for abdominal radiographs: impact on utilization and appropriateness.

Authors:  L H Harpole; R Khorasani; J Fiskio; G J Kuperman; D W Bates
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  1997 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.497

5.  Kidney stones and imaging: what can your radiologist do for you?

Authors:  Raphaële Renard-Penna; Aurélie Martin; Pierre Conort; Pierre Mozer; Philippe Grenier
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-10-26       Impact factor: 4.226

6.  Role of the plain radiograph and urinalysis in acute ureteric colic.

Authors:  R Boyd; A J Gray
Journal:  J Accid Emerg Med       Date:  1996-11

7.  Unenhanced spiral CT in acute ureteral colic: a replacement for excretory urography?

Authors:  J A Ryu; B Kim; Y H Jeon; J Lee; J W Lee; S S Jeon; K H Park
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2001 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 3.500

Review 8.  [Diagnosis and therapy of acute ureteral colic].

Authors:  Thomas H Forster; Gernot Bonkat; Stephen Wyler; Robin Ruszat; Nicole Ebinger; Thomas C Gasser; Alexander Bachmann
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.704

9.  A clinical prediction rule for the diagnosis of ureteral calculi in emergency departments.

Authors:  T J Elton; C S Roth; T H Berquist; M D Silverstein
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1993-02       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  The renal resistive index as a predictor of acute hydronephrosis in patients with renal colic.

Authors:  E M S Piazzese; G I Mazzeo; S Galipò; F Fiumara; C Canfora; L G Angiò
Journal:  J Ultrasound       Date:  2012-10-14
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.