ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2021
Predicting emergency interventions in patients with acute ureteral colic using acute renal colic scoring system in a Pakistani cohort.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the acute renal colic score (ARC) in predicting the need of emergency intervention (EI) in patients with ureteric colic secondary to a ureteral stone. PATIENT AND
methodsIn an emergency room (ER) of a university hospital, we conducted a prospective cohort study over a period of 6 months. ARC score was calculated using four parameters, i.e., serum creatinine, total white cell count (TLC), stone length and level. Primary outcome measure was EI, which was defined as the need of endourological intervention within 48 h of presentation. ARC was calculated for each patient against the two possible outcomes, i.e., EI vs. no EI. The need of intervention was based on patient-related clinical factors and the decision of the attending urologist.
resultsThe study included 132 patients. EI was performed in 85 patients (64.4%). URS was the most common intervention performed in 81 (95.3%) patients, followed by the a insertion of a double J stent in two (2.4%) patients for forniceal rupture and high TLC count and percutaneous nephrostomy in two (2.4%) patients for raised creatinine and TLC. All four variables in ARC score including serum creatinine (p < 0.001), TLC (p < 0.001), stone size (p < 0.001) and stone level (p < 0.001) were found to be significantly associated with need for EI. Using ROC the sensitivity and specificity of the score was 92.9% and 87.5%, respectively, with AUC of 0.93.
conclusionsARC score is highly sensitive and specific in determining the need of EI in patients with uncomplicated ureteric colic within 48 h of initial presentation.
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.