Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41343761›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2025

Evaluation of the 2020 American Urological Association Microscopic Hematuria Guidelines in Clinical Practice: Retrospective Chart Review Analysis.

Dominique Munroe, James O'Keefe, Danyang Wang, Miranda A Moore

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Dominique MunroeDepartment of Family Medicine, Atrium Health Navicent, 777 Hemlock St, Macon, GA, 31201, United States, 1 4705109235.ORCID 0000-0001-8600-2469
James O'KeefeDepartment of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7151-7184
Danyang WangDepartment of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2841-143X
Miranda A MooreDepartment of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1455-6099

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Hematuria is one of the most common urologic diseases seen within clinical practice, with a prevalence range of 1.7%-31.1%. In 2020, American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines were revised and recommend that following initial evaluation, clinicians should categorize patients into three tiers (low risk, intermediate risk, and high risk) based on various factors. Recent literature has shown that the AUA guidelines have high clinical utility when compared to other international guidelines such as those outlined by the Hematuria Risk Index, Canadian Urological Association, and Kaiser Permanente; however, this guideline remains unvalidated among the population of "well adults" within the United States. Objective: We used a retrospective study design to evaluate data abstracted from the electronic medical records of patients seen in the Emory Healthcare Executive Health Clinic from September 29, 2017, to January 29, 2021, to investigate the utility of risk stratification as a tool for clinical decision-making. Methods: According to the AUA risk stratification system, patients were stratified into low-risk and intermediate-risk/high-risk groups based on sex, age, smoking history, history of gross hematuria, and red blood cells/high-powered field. The frequencies and percentages of different causes of hematuria across the three risk strata were reported. Results: Of the 882 instances of red blood cells in urine (URBC) ≥3, a total of 368 (41.72%) underwent a repeat analysis within a 6-month time span, 184 (20.86%) within a 12-month time span, and 330 (37.41%) at >12 months. Instances of a URBC <3 (N=1643) were more likely to have no urologic diagnosis-1503 (91.48%) in comparison to 633 (76.27%) for those instances with a URBC >3 (N=830). Ultimately, 23 (100%) participants in the low-risk group had no urologic diagnosis after urinalysis versus 608 (75.62%) in the intermediate-risk/high-risk group (N=804). Conclusions: We found a need for a greater focus on monitoring elevated URBC counts, in accordance with clinical guidelines for managing hematuria in low-risk patients. Future research should examine the impact of risk stratification on clinical decisions and access to care, especially in underserved populations. It should also assess how the new AUA guidelines affect physician referral patterns and explore real-world implementation challenges and facilitators.

Indexed as

HematuriaPractice Guidelines as TopicUrologyAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentSocieties, MedicalUnited Statescystoscopyguidelinehematuriarisk stratificationurinalysis

Identifiers

PMID41343761
PMCPMC12677728

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.