ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
Discrepant guidelines in the evaluation of hematuria.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. 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, 1 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess discrepancies in current imaging recommendations for hematuria among North American societies: American College of Radiology (ACR), American Urological Association (AUA), and Canadian Urological Association (CUA).
methodsThe latest available ACR Appropriateness Recommendations, AUA guidelines, and CUA guidelines were reviewed. AUA and CUA guidelines imaging recommendations by variants and level of appropriateness were converted to match the style of ACR. Imaging recommendations including modality, anatomy, and requirement for contrast were recorded.
resultsClinical variants included microhematuria without risk factors, microhematuria with risk factors, gross hematuria, and microhematuria during pregnancy. CUA recommends ultrasound kidneys as the first-line imaging study in the first 3 variants; pregnancy is not explicitly addressed. For hematuria without risk factors, ACR does not routinely recommend imaging, while AUA recommends shared decision-making to decide repeat urinalysis versus cystoscopy with ultrasound kidneys. For hematuria with risk factors and gross hematuria, ACR recommends CT urography; MR urography can also be considered in gross hematuria. AUA further stratifies intermediate- and high-risk patients, for which ultrasound kidneys and CT urography are recommended, respectively. For pregnancy, ACR and AUA both recommend ultrasound kidneys, though AUA additionally recommends consideration of CT or MR urography after delivery.
conclusionThere is no universally agreed upon algorithm for diagnostic evaluation. Discrepancies centered on the role of upper tract imaging with ultrasound versus CT. Prospective studies and/or repeat simulation studies that apply newly updated guidelines are needed to further clarify the role of imaging, particularly for patients with microhematuria with no and intermediate risk factors.
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.