| Literature DB >> 36072079 |
Abdulaziz Al-Balushi1, Amal Al-Shibli2, Abdullah Al-Reesi2, Qazi Zia Ullah2, Waleed Al-Shukaili2, Saleh Baawain3, Hamoud Al-Dhuhli3, Mohammed Al-Shamsi4, Ahmed Al-Hubaishi5, Al Yaqdhan H Al-Atbi6.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to determine the accuracy of renal point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) performed by emergency physicians in detecting hydronephrosis in patients with renal colic.Entities:
Keywords: Hematuria; Hydronephrosis; Nephrolithiasis; Oman; Point-of-Care Testing; Renal Colic; Ultrasonography
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36072079 PMCID: PMC9423761 DOI: 10.18295/squmj.9.2021.130
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J ISSN: 2075-051X
Figure 1Grading hydronephrosis severity using point-of-care ultrasound as (A) mild, (B) moderate and (C) severe.
Figure 2Flowchart of study procedure.
POCUS = point-of-care ultrasound; CT= computed tomography; ED = emergency department.
Characteristics of the study participants (N = 303)
| Characteristic | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Mean age in years | 39 |
| Number of male participants | 247 (81.5) |
| Haematuria in urine dipstick | 234 (78.8) |
| Hydronephrosis present on renal POCUS | 205 (67.5) |
| Hydronephrosis present on NCCT | 215 (71) |
|
| |
| None | 87 (28.7) |
| Mild | 78 (25.7) |
| Moderate | 138 (45.5) |
| Severe | 0 (0.0) |
| Ureteral stone present on NCCT | 207 (68.3) |
| Hydronephrosis without ureteral stone on NCCT | 9 (3.0) |
|
| |
| Present | 135 (44.6) |
| Absent | 168 (55.5) |
POCUS = point-of-care ultrasound; NCCT = non-contrast computed tomography.
Figure 3A diagram of test characteristics of any hydronephrosis on ultrasonography compared with any hydronephrosis on CT.
POCUS = point-of-care ultrasound; NCCT = non-contrast computed tomography.
Sensitivity, specificity and likelihood ratio for the presence of hydronephrosis; comparing bedside renal point-of-care ultrasound to non-contrast computed tomography
|
| |
| Sensitivity: 75.8% (95% CI: 69.5 | Positive Likelihood Ratio: 1.69 (95% CI: 1.32 |
| Specificity: 55.2% (95% CI: 44.1 | Negative Likelihood Ratio: 0.43 (95% CI: 0.32 |
|
| |
| Sensitivity: 58.33% (95% CI: 44.88% | Positive Likelihood Ratio: 1.49 (95% CI: 1.05–2.10) |
| Specificity: 60.76% (95% CI: 49.12% | Negative Likelihood Ratio: 0.68 (95% CI: 0.48 |
|
| |
| Sensitivity: 64.93% (95% CI: 53.21% | Positive Likelihood Ratio: 4.54 (95% CI: 2.34 |
| Specificity: 85.71% (95% CI: 73.78% | Negative Likelihood Ratio: 0.41 (95% CI: 0.30 |