ReviewCureus2025
The Diagnostic Accuracy of Reduced-Dose CT of the Kidneys, Ureters, and Bladder in the Evaluation of Renal Colic.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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
Non-contrast CT of the kidneys, ureters, and bladder (CT KUB) is the reference standard for suspected renal colic, but radiation exposure is a concern. Reduced-dose CT KUB protocols have been developed to minimise risk, and multiple systematic reviews have assessed their diagnostic accuracy. Our objective was to evaluate the diagnostic performance of low-dose (LD) and ultra-LD (ULD) CT KUB for suspected urolithiasis and to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews written on this topic. A systematic search in June 2025 was conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library from inception until the time of search, yielding 1,357 results, with 1,318 remaining after de-duplication. Three systematic reviews were eligible. Data were extracted on study scope, populations, definitions of LD/ULD dose, accuracy outcomes, and review quality. Risk of bias was appraised using risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS). The three included reviews synthesised between six and 12 primary diagnostic accuracy studies (sample sizes: 903-1,529 participants) and were published in the mid-to-late 2010s. Pooled estimates from one review demonstrated high diagnostic performance of LD and ULD CT KUB (ULD: sensitivity 95%, specificity 97%; LD: sensitivity 92%, specificity 97%). The remaining reviews provided narrative syntheses, consistently reporting sensitivities and specificities above 85%, though diagnostic performance was reduced in obese patients and for stones <3 mm. All reviews highlighted the potential to detect alternative diagnoses. ROBIS identified one review at low risk of bias, one at moderate risk (due to heterogeneous reference standards and language restrictions), and one at high risk (no primary study quality appraisal). Existing systematic reviews consistently support reduced-dose CT KUB as highly accurate for diagnosing urolithiasis, with performance approaching standard-dose CT, though limitations exist in obese patients and for very small stones. Methodological quality of the reviews was variable. Further high-quality reviews using standardised methods are warranted to refine estimates and assess generalisability.
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.