ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2021
Accuracy of ultrasound vs computed tomography scan for upper urinary tract malignancies and development of a risk-based diagnostic algorithm for haematuria in a UK tertiary centre.
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. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging in Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: Diagnostic Accuracy of Current Modalities for Local Tumor Staging.Current urology reports · 2026Review
- Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: An Update on Current Diagnostic Modalities and Emerging Biomarkers.Journal of personalized medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThere is no consensus across guidelines on a diagnostic algorithm for upper urinary tract (UUT) evaluation following presentation with haematuria. Our aim is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound (USS) compared to CT-scan for UUT malignancies and also determine the considerations important for a risk-based diagnostic protocol for haematuria.
methodsWe reviewed our 'haematuria clinic' database to identify patients who had both USS and CT-scan for UUT evaluation between September 2015 and August 2017, and calculated the diagnostic accuracy of these imaging modalities for histologically confirmed UUT cancers. Furthermore, we identified risk factors in our diagnostic algorithm for haematuria and conducted regression analysis to determine their ability to predict UUT malignancies.
resultsOverall, 575 patient records were studied. Age range was 21-92 years, M:F was 1.4:1, majority (81.2%) had visible haematuria, and 12 (2.1%) UUT cancers were diagnosed [renal cell carcinoma-1.4%; upper tract urothelial cancer-0.7%]. USS and CT-scan had diagnostic accuracy for UUT cancers of 95.8 and 99.1%, respectively (p < 0.001). Haematuria type was a significant consideration only on univariate analysis, while multivariate binary logistic regression showed that male gender, smoking, occupational exposure, and positive urologic history were the main risk factors associated with UUT malignancies.
conclusionUSS and CT-scan have comparably high diagnostic accuracy for detecting UUT malignancies. USS may, therefore, be considered as the first-line UUT imaging modality when utilized in a risk-based diagnostic algorithm. Larger, multicentred studies are needed to validate our findings and influence guideline development.
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.