ArticleUrology annals
Hematuria: Is it useful in predicting renal or ureteral stones in patient presenting to emergency department with flank pain?
Article in Urology annals. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of the study was to evaluate hematuria as a diagnostic test for renal and ureteral stones compared with a noncontrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan (gold standard test) in emergency room patients with acute flank pain. Patients and Methods: In total, 604 patients treated in our emergency department from 2006 to 2011, with a history of flank pain and suspected urolithiasis were included in a retrospective review. All patients were evaluated with a noncontrast-enhanced CT scan and urine analysis. Using the noncontrast CT scan as the gold standard for the evaluation of the presence, number, size, and site (renal or ureteral [upper, middle, and lower]) of the stones, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of hematuria for diagnosing both renal and ureteral stones. Results: Urolithiasis was diagnosed in 388 patients (64%) and 216 patients (36%) had no stones on a noncontrast-enhanced CT scan. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for microhematuria were 77%, 33%, 67%, and 45%, respectively. Microhematuria was more common in patients with ureteral stones only (139 patients) and had a sensitivity of 85% compared to patients with renal stones only (32 patients), with a sensitivity of 55% ( Conclusion: Although microhematuria is more sensitive to ureteral stones, the absence of microhematuria does not exclude the possibility of urolithiasis and a noncontrast-enhanced CT scan should be the gold standard diagnostic tool.
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.