Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26747219›Full record

Observational studyAnnals of emergency medicine2016

STONE PLUS: Evaluation of Emergency Department Patients With Suspected Renal Colic, Using a Clinical Prediction Tool Combined With Point-of-Care Limited Ultrasonography.

Brock Daniels, Cary P Gross, Annette Molinaro, Dinesh Singh, Seth Luty, Richelle Jessey, Christopher L Moore

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Annals of emergency medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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 · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Brock DanielsDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT. Electronic address: brockdaniels@gmail.com.
Cary P GrossDepartment of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
Annette MolinaroDepartment of Neurosurgery, University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA.
Dinesh SinghDepartment of Urology, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
Seth LutyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
Richelle JesseyDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
Christopher L MooreDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.

Funding

Identifying Unnecessary Irradiation of Patients with Suspected Renal ColicR01HS018322 · AHRQ · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI MOORE, CHRISTOPHER L · 2010 to 2013
$2.0M
AHRQ HHS 5R01HS018322AHRQ HHS R01 HS018322
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

objectiveWe determine whether renal point-of-care limited ultrasonography (PLUS) used in conjunction with the Sex, Timing, Origin, Nausea, Erythrocytes (STONE) clinical prediction score can aid identification of emergency department (ED) patients with uncomplicated ureteral stone or need for urologic intervention.

methodsThis was a prospective observational study of adult ED patients undergoing computed tomography (CT) scan for suspected ureteral stone. The previously validated STONE score classifies patients into risk categories of low (≈10%), moderate (≈50%), or high (≈90%) for symptomatic stone. Renal PLUS assessed for presence of hydronephrosis before CT scanning. The primary outcomes of symptomatic ureteral stone or acutely important alternative finding were abstracted from CT reports. The secondary outcome, urologic intervention, was assessed by 90-day follow-up interview and record review.

resultsOf 835 enrolled patients, ureteral stone was identified in 53%, whereas 6.5% had an acutely important alternative finding on CT. Renal PLUS modestly increased sensitivity for symptomatic stone among low and moderate STONE score categories. Moderate or greater hydronephrosis improved specificity from 67% (62% to 72%) to 98% (93% to 99%) and 42% (37% to 47%) to 92% (86% to 95%) in low- and moderate-risk patients, with likelihood ratios of 22 (95% CI, 4.2-111) and 4.9 (95% CI, 2.9-8.3), respectively. Test characteristics among high-risk patients were unchanged by renal PLUS. For urologic intervention, any hydronephrosis was 66% sensitive (57% to 74%), whereas moderate or greater hydronephrosis was 86% specific overall (83% to 89%) and 81% (69% to 90%) sensitive and 79% 95% CI, (73-84) specific among patients with the highest likelihood of symptomatic stone.

conclusionHydronephrosis on renal PLUS modestly improved risk stratification in low- and moderate-risk STONE score patients. The presence or absence of hydronephrosis among high-risk patients did not significantly alter likelihood of symptomatic stone but may aid in identifying patients more likely to require urologic intervention.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHumansKidney CalculiMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRenal ColicRisk AssessmentSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonography

Identifiers

PMID26747219
PMCPMC5074842

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.