血尿:对于因腹部疼痛到急诊科就诊的患者,血尿是否有助于预测肾结石或输尿管结石?

IF 0.7 Q4 UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY
Urology Annals Pub Date : 2023-11-15 DOI:10.4103/ua.ua_66_23
Mansour Alnazari, A. Bakhsh, H. Shaqroon, Emad S. Rajih, Nizar Abdulaziz Al-Nakshabandi, Danny M. Rabah
{"title":"血尿:对于因腹部疼痛到急诊科就诊的患者,血尿是否有助于预测肾结石或输尿管结石?","authors":"Mansour Alnazari, A. Bakhsh, H. Shaqroon, Emad S. Rajih, Nizar Abdulaziz Al-Nakshabandi, Danny M. Rabah","doi":"10.4103/ua.ua_66_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The objective of the study was to evaluate hematuria as a diagnostic test for renal and ureteral stones compared with a noncontrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan (gold standard test) in emergency room patients with acute flank pain. In total, 604 patients treated in our emergency department from 2006 to 2011, with a history of flank pain and suspected urolithiasis were included in a retrospective review. All patients were evaluated with a noncontrast-enhanced CT scan and urine analysis. Using the noncontrast CT scan as the gold standard for the evaluation of the presence, number, size, and site (renal or ureteral [upper, middle, and lower]) of the stones, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of hematuria for diagnosing both renal and ureteral stones. Urolithiasis was diagnosed in 388 patients (64%) and 216 patients (36%) had no stones on a noncontrast-enhanced CT scan. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for microhematuria were 77%, 33%, 67%, and 45%, respectively. Microhematuria was more common in patients with ureteral stones only (139 patients) and had a sensitivity of 85% compared to patients with renal stones only (32 patients), with a sensitivity of 55% (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the specificity or positive or negative predictive values. Although microhematuria is more sensitive to ureteral stones, the absence of microhematuria does not exclude the possibility of urolithiasis and a noncontrast-enhanced CT scan should be the gold standard diagnostic tool.","PeriodicalId":23633,"journal":{"name":"Urology Annals","volume":"181 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hematuria: Is it useful in predicting renal or ureteral stones in patient presenting to emergency department with flank pain?\",\"authors\":\"Mansour Alnazari, A. Bakhsh, H. Shaqroon, Emad S. Rajih, Nizar Abdulaziz Al-Nakshabandi, Danny M. Rabah\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ua.ua_66_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The objective of the study was to evaluate hematuria as a diagnostic test for renal and ureteral stones compared with a noncontrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan (gold standard test) in emergency room patients with acute flank pain. In total, 604 patients treated in our emergency department from 2006 to 2011, with a history of flank pain and suspected urolithiasis were included in a retrospective review. All patients were evaluated with a noncontrast-enhanced CT scan and urine analysis. Using the noncontrast CT scan as the gold standard for the evaluation of the presence, number, size, and site (renal or ureteral [upper, middle, and lower]) of the stones, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of hematuria for diagnosing both renal and ureteral stones. Urolithiasis was diagnosed in 388 patients (64%) and 216 patients (36%) had no stones on a noncontrast-enhanced CT scan. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for microhematuria were 77%, 33%, 67%, and 45%, respectively. Microhematuria was more common in patients with ureteral stones only (139 patients) and had a sensitivity of 85% compared to patients with renal stones only (32 patients), with a sensitivity of 55% (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the specificity or positive or negative predictive values. Although microhematuria is more sensitive to ureteral stones, the absence of microhematuria does not exclude the possibility of urolithiasis and a noncontrast-enhanced CT scan should be the gold standard diagnostic tool.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23633,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urology Annals\",\"volume\":\"181 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urology Annals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ua.ua_66_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urology Annals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ua.ua_66_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项研究的目的是评估血尿与非造影剂增强计算机断层扫描(CT)扫描(金标准检查)相比,在急性侧腹疼痛的急诊患者中作为肾结石和输尿管结石诊断检查的效果。 2006年至2011年期间,我们急诊科共收治了604名有腹部疼痛病史并疑似患有泌尿系结石的患者,并对这些患者进行了回顾性分析。所有患者均接受了非对比度增强 CT 扫描和尿液分析。我们将非对比CT扫描作为评估结石存在、数量、大小和部位(肾结石或输尿管结石[上段、中段和下段])的金标准,计算了血尿对诊断肾结石和输尿管结石的敏感性、特异性以及阳性和阴性预测值。 388名患者(64%)确诊为尿路结石,216名患者(36%)在非对比度增强CT扫描中未发现结石。微血尿的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为 77%、33%、67% 和 45%。微血尿在仅有输尿管结石的患者(139例)中更为常见,敏感性为85%,而仅有肾结石的患者(32例)的敏感性为55%(P < 0.001)。特异性、阳性或阴性预测值没有明显差异。 虽然微血尿对输尿管结石更敏感,但没有微血尿并不能排除尿路结石的可能性,非对比度增强 CT 扫描应作为金标准诊断工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hematuria: Is it useful in predicting renal or ureteral stones in patient presenting to emergency department with flank pain?
The objective of the study was to evaluate hematuria as a diagnostic test for renal and ureteral stones compared with a noncontrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan (gold standard test) in emergency room patients with acute flank pain. In total, 604 patients treated in our emergency department from 2006 to 2011, with a history of flank pain and suspected urolithiasis were included in a retrospective review. All patients were evaluated with a noncontrast-enhanced CT scan and urine analysis. Using the noncontrast CT scan as the gold standard for the evaluation of the presence, number, size, and site (renal or ureteral [upper, middle, and lower]) of the stones, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of hematuria for diagnosing both renal and ureteral stones. Urolithiasis was diagnosed in 388 patients (64%) and 216 patients (36%) had no stones on a noncontrast-enhanced CT scan. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for microhematuria were 77%, 33%, 67%, and 45%, respectively. Microhematuria was more common in patients with ureteral stones only (139 patients) and had a sensitivity of 85% compared to patients with renal stones only (32 patients), with a sensitivity of 55% (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the specificity or positive or negative predictive values. Although microhematuria is more sensitive to ureteral stones, the absence of microhematuria does not exclude the possibility of urolithiasis and a noncontrast-enhanced CT scan should be the gold standard diagnostic tool.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Urology Annals
Urology Annals UROLOGY & NEPHROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
审稿时长
31 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信