ArticleJournal of general and family medicine2025
Risk stratification and diagnostic evaluation of patients found to have microscopic hematuria by their primary care providers.
Article in Journal of general and family medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Urethral diverticulum carcinoma management: a case report and review of the literature.Journal of medical case reports · 2026Review
- Real-World Utility of Cxbladder Triage for Patients with Microhematuria: A Matched Cohort Study.Urology practice · 2026Article
- Risk stratification and diagnostic evaluation of patients found to have microscopic hematuria by their primary care providers.Journal of general and family medicine · 2025Article
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
Background: Our goal was to identify, and risk stratify primary care patients with microscopic hematuria (MH), describe the diagnostic evaluations they received, and determine whether the evaluations were consistent with the recommendations of the 2020 AUA/SUFU microscopic hematuria guidelines. Methods: A retrospective review of patients presenting to primary care clinics with a diagnosis of MH was performed. The patient risk category was determined based on the 2020 AUA/SUFU guidelines. Diagnostic strategies were recorded, and guideline concordance was determined. Descriptive statistics were generated to describe outcomes. Results: A total of 368 patients had a diagnosis of MH; 267/368 (72.6%) patients had all pertinent data available for risk stratification. One-hundred and fifty-six (58.4) patients were high-risk and 55 (35.3%) had a urologic visit. Forty-one of the 55 (75%) were diagnostically evaluated of which 13 (31.7%) were in-line with guideline recommendations. Eighty-two (30.7%) patients were at intermediate risk of which 33 (40.2%) had a urology visit. Of these 33 intermediate-risk patients, 27 (81.8%) were diagnostically evaluated, five (18.5%) of which were in-line with guideline recommendations. Twenty-nine patients were low risk of which 4 (13.8%) had a urology visit. Three of the four patients seen by urology (75%) were evaluated with imaging studies and none received a cystoscopy. Conclusion: Almost 60% of the patients in our cohort were high-risk according to the AUA/SUFU 2020 guidelines. Across all strata, the majority of patients lacked a urology visit and diagnostic evaluation consistent with guideline recommendations. Future efforts should ensure appropriate urologic referral and optimize initial diagnostic strategies for patients with MH.
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.