ArticleEmergency radiology2015
Limited added utility of performing follow-up contrast-enhanced CT in patients undergoing initial non-enhanced CT for evaluation of flank pain in the emergency department.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of Computed Tomography of the Kidneys, Ureter and Bladder in Non-Calculus Diagnoses: A Comparative Review of Non-Enhanced with Intravenous Contrast-Enhanced Imaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Emergency department non-contrast computed tomography for suspicion of obstructive urolithiasis: Yield and consequences.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2022Article
- Portal phase alone is equivalent to multiphasic phase for CT diagnosis of acute non-traumatic pains in an emergency context.Emergency radiology · 2020Article
- Effect of intravenous contrast for CT abdomen and pelvis on detection of urgent and non-urgent pathology: can repeat CT within 72 hours be avoided?Emergency radiology · 2019Article
- [When are contrast agents really needed? : Cross-sectional imaging with computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging].Der Radiologe · 2019Review
- Systematic unenhanced CT for acute abdominal symptoms in the elderly patients improves both emergency department diagnosis and prompt clinical management.European radiology · 2017Article
- Diagnosing acute appendicitis using a nonoral contrast CT protocol in patients with a BMI of less than 25.Emergency radiology · 2016Article
- Acute nontraumatic splenic infarctions at a tertiary-care center: causes and predisposing factors in 123 patients.Emergency radiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In our emergency department (ED), patients with flank pain often undergo non-enhanced computed tomography (NECT) to assess for nephroureteral (NU) stone. After immediate image review, decision is made regarding need for subsequent contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) to help assess for other causes of pain. This study aimed to review the experience of a single institution with this protocol and to assess the utility of CECT. Over a 6 month period, we performed a retrospective analysis on ED patients presenting with flank pain undergoing CT for a clinical diagnosis of nephroureterolithiasis. Patients initially underwent abdominopelvic NECT. The interpreting radiologist immediately decided whether to obtain a CECT to evaluate for another etiology of pain. Medical records, CT reports and images, and 7-day ED return were reviewed. CT diagnoses on NECT and CECT were compared. Additional information from CECT and changes in management as documented in the patient's medical record were noted. Three hundred twenty-two patients underwent NECT for obstructing NU stones during the study period. Renal or ureteral calculi were detected in 143/322 (44.4 %). One hundred fifty-four patients (47.8 %) underwent CECT. CECT added information in 17/322 cases (5.3 %) but only changed management in 6/322 patients (1.9 %). In four of these patients with final diagnosis of renal infarct, splenic infarct, pyelonephritis and early acute appendicitis in a thin patient, there was no abnormality on the NECT (4/322 patients, 1.2 %). In the remaining 2 patients, an abnormality was visible on the NECT. In patients presenting with flank pain with a clinical suspicion of nephroureterolithiasis, CECT may not be indicated. While CECT provided better delineation of an abnormality in 5.3 % of cases, changes in management after CECT occurred only in 2 %. This included 1 % of patients in whom a diagnosis of organ infarct, pyelonephritis or acute appendicitis in a thin patient could only be made on CECT.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25082439What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.