Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36474707›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2022

A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical signs, symptoms, and imaging findings in patients with suspected renal colic.

Philipp Dahm, Alex Koziarz, Charles J Gerardo, Daniel K Nishijima, Jae Hung Jung, Simranjeet Benipal, Ali S Raja

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. 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 at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Philipp DahmUrology Section Minneapolis VA Medical Center and Department of Urology University of Minnesota Minneapolis Minnesota USA.
Alex KoziarzFaculty of Medicine University of Toronto Toronto Ontario Canada.
Charles J GerardoDepartment of Emergency Medicine Duke University Medical Center Durham North Carolina USA.
Daniel K NishijimaDepartment of Emergency Medicine Davis School of Medicine University of California Sacramento California USA.
Jae Hung JungDepartment of Urology Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine Wonju Gangwon-do South Korea.
Simranjeet BenipalCollege of Medicine California Northstate University Elk Grove California USA.
Ali S RajaDepartment of Emergency Medicine Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School Boston Massachusetts USA.
California Northstate University · USDuke Medical Center · USMassachusetts General Hospital · USUniversity of California, Davis · USUniversity of Minnesota · USUniversity of Toronto · CAYonsei University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Study Objective: The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical signs, symptoms, laboratory investigations, and imaging modalities commonly used in patients with clinically suspected renal colic. Methods: We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis according to an a priori, registered protocol (PROSPERO CRD42017055153). A literature search was performed using MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to July 2, 2020. We assessed the risk of bias using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2, calculated likelihood ratios (LRs), and applied a random-effects model for meta-analysis. Results: Among 7641 references screened, 76 were included in the systematic review and 53 were included in the meta-analyis. The overall pooled prevalence for ureteral stones was 63% (95% confidence interval [CI], 58%-67%). No individual demographic feature, symptom, or sign when present had an LR+ ≥2.0 for identifying ureterolithiasis. A (Sex, Timing and Origin of pain, race, presence or absence of Nausea, and Erythrocytes) STONE score ≥10 increased (sensitivity 0.49, specificity 0.91, LR 5.3 [95% CI, 4.1-6.7]) and a STONE score <6 reduced the likelihood of ureteral stones (sensitivity 0.94, specificity 0.43, LR 0.15 [95% CI, 0.10-0.22]). Standard-dose (sensitivity 0.96, specificity 0.94, LR+ 16 [95% CI, 11-23], LR- 0.05 [95% CI, 0.03-0.07]) and low-dose computed tomography (CT) scanning (sensitivity 0.93, specificity 0.94, LR+ 17 [95% CI, 8.8-31], LR- 0.08 [95% CI, 0.03-0.19]) were the most useful imaging techniques for identifying patients with or without ureteral stones. Conclusions: Individual signs, symptoms, or the presence of microscopic hematuria do not substantially impact the likelihood of ureteral stones in patients with clinically suspected renal colic. The STONE score at high and low thresholds and a modified STONE score at a high threshold may sufficiently guide physicians' decisions to obtain imaging. Low-dose, non-contrast CT imaging provides superior diagnostic accuracy compared with all other imaging index tests that are comparable with standard CT imaging. Limitations of the evidence include methodological shortcomings and considerable heterogeneity of the included studies.

Indexed as

diagnostic accuracyevidence‐based clinical practicemeta‐analysisphysical examination findingsrenal colicsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36474707
PMCPMC9716037
OpenAlexW4310610839

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.