ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2024
Are renal stone protocol computed tomography reports giving us enough information?
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNon-contrast computed tomography (CT) is the gold-standard diagnostic test for urolithiasis. Little is published regarding which information needs to be included in the report for it to be most useful to the healthcare team for efficient triage and high-quality patient care. This study aimed to assess the quality and variability of CT scan reporting at a single Canadian tertiary academic medical center.
methodsWe completed a retrospective review of 100 consecutive renal colic CT scans. Descriptive statistics were used to report the frequency with which specific elements commonly used by urologists to triage and treat patients were included in radiology reports.
resultsOur sample had a mean age of 51.4±13.1 years. Stone size was universally reported for obstructing stones but was less frequently reported for non-obstructing stones (100% vs. 86.8%). A similar trend was observed for the exact stone number (100% vs. 93.4%). Non-obstructing stones were more likely than obstructing stones to be reported in one dimension (77.5% vs. 47%). Obstructing stones were reported in three dimensions 27% of the time. CT reports commonly include the presence or absence of hydronephrosis status (98%) but are less likely to include renal size (32%) and periureteral stranding (16%). Hounsfield units (HU) were reported in 3% of the reports, but skin-to-stone distance (SSD) and radiation dose were never reported.
conclusionsReports routinely included assessments of stone size, location, and number (although not uniformly). HU, SSD, and radiation dose were rarely reported. This provides insight into opportunities for standardized reporting to optimize knowledge transfer that may result in clinical efficiency and improved quality of patient care.
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.