ArticleCureus2025
Optimising Urinary Tract CT Scans for Renal Colic: Enhancing Efficiency and Reducing Radiation.
Article 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn a locally performed audit, we found that the majority of computed tomography (CT) scans of the urinary tract performed for suspected renal colic did not meet the overscan criteria in line with national guidelines. We aimed to reduce unnecessary radiation in a local radiology department by designing a suspected renal colic radiology pathway. Methods: We designed a retrospective, observational, single-centre study performed at Basildon & Thurrock University Hospital (BTUH), Basildon, United Kingdom. Using the department's Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS), this study reviewed 101 chronological CT scans of the urinary tract in two separate audit cycles between January and August 2025 that had been requested to investigate suspected renal colic, assessing whether they met criteria for overscan as per national standards. Our interventions included a vetting note offering a recommendation for the upper border of the scan (T11 vertebra), included for all CT urinary tracts requested for suspected renal colic. We also designed a poster for radiographers, highlighting the expected borders of the CT scan. The data were anonymised, and demographical information was collected. We calculated the overscan percentage by recording the number of total and overscan axial slices. Dose length product (DLP) data was obtained to quantify excess radiation exposure. Results: In our initial audit cycle, we found that only 36% (18/50) of CT scans reviewed met criteria for overscan. Mean DLP overscan was calculated at 28.21 mGy·cm with extrapolated overscan radiation dosage measured at 0.423 mSv. Following the interventions, a further 51 scans were audited, revealing improved results; 70.6% (36/51) of CT scans reviewed met criteria for <10% overscan. Mean DLP overscan improved to 16.21 mGy·cm, and extrapolated overscan radiation dosage markedly improved to 0.243 mSv. Only 28% (14/50) of scans had correct positioning at the T11 vertebra level pre-intervention, improving to 56.9% (29/51) post-intervention. Compliance with the accepted standard increased by 96.1%. Average overscan decreased by 29.2%, and average excess radiation exposure decreased by 42.6%.
conclusionOur interventions resulted in adherence to the accepted standard doubling over a four-month period. Average ionising radiation exposure has been significantly reduced, which reduces the risk of carcinogenesis. Both interventions carried out in this study are low fidelity and are readily reproducible on a national scale. This study encourages radiology departments to audit radiation exposure from CT scans of the urinary tract for suspected renal colic, according to national standards. Future work should focus on multi-centre implementation to validate generalisability, assess long-term sustainability of behaviour change, and quantify the cumulative dose savings at a population level.
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.