ArticleInvestigative and clinical urology2016
Radiation dosing in the investigation and follow-up of urolithiasis: Comparison between historical and contemporary practices.
Article in Investigative and clinical urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Very low-dose computerized tomography for confirmation of urinary stone presence.World journal of urology · 2021Article
- Consideration of the usefulness of a size-specific dose estimate in pediatric CT examination.Journal of radiation research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeComputed tomography (CT) is the gold standard imaging modality for the diagnosis and follow-up of urolithiasis. Before the use of CT, intravenous urography (IVU) was the imaging modality of choice. CT remains contentious because of the cancer risk related to radiation exposure above a threshold level. We aimed to compare the radiation exposure dose to the average patient with urolithiasis in the era of CT with that of IVU. MATERIALS AND
methodsOur hospital medical records database was searched for patients who presented to the Emergency Department over a 1-month period in 1990 with a diagnosis of renal colic. Patients with the same presentation, from the same month, in 2013 were also identified. A total of 14 patients from each year fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The estimated effective radiation exposure dose for each patient was calculated by using data from population-based studies.
resultsThe median effective radiation dose per patient in the 1990 group, for initial diagnosis and subsequent follow-up, was 4.05 mSv (interquartile range [IQR], 3.7-4.4 mSv). The corresponding median dose in the 2013 group was 4.2 mSv (IQR, 4.2-4.9 mSv), and there was no evidence of a statistical difference between the groups (p=0.8).
conclusionsDespite the contentiousness related to the use of serial CT scanning, our study demonstrated that for radiological investigation and follow-up of urolithiasis, the estimated effective radiation exposure dose to each patient is only marginally higher than in the era of IVU, with improvements in length of hospital stay and time to definitive diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.