Dataset Information

What are the clinical effects of the different emergency department imaging options for suspected renal colic? A scoping review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Clinicians have minimal guidance regarding the clinical consequences of each radiologic imaging option for suspected renal colic in the emergency department (ED), particularly in relation to patient-centered outcomes. In this scoping review, we sought to identify studies addressing the impact of imaging options on patient-centered aspects of ED renal colic care to help clinicians engage in informed shared decision making. Specifically, we sought to answer questions regarding the effect of obtaining computed tomography (CT; compared with an ultrasound or delayed imaging) on safety outcomes, accuracy, prognosis, and cost (financial and length of stay [LOS]).

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive search using Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science conference proceedings index, and Google Scholar, identifying studies pertaining to renal colic, urolithiasis, and ureterolithiasis. In a prior qualitative study, stakeholders identified 14 key questions regarding renal colic care in the domains of safety, accuracy, prognosis, and cost. We systematically screened studies and reviewed the full text of articles based on their ability to address the 14 key questions.

Results

Our search yielded 2570 titles, and 68 met the inclusion criteria. Substantial evidence informed questions regarding test accuracy and radiation exposure, but less evidence was available regarding the effect of imaging modality on patient-oriented outcomes such as cost and prognosis (admissions, ED revisits, and procedures). Reviewed studies demonstrated that both standard renal protocol CT and low-dose CT are highly accurate, with ultrasound having lower accuracy. Several studies found that ureterolithiasis diagnosed by ultrasound was associated with overall reduced radiation exposure. Existing studies did not suggest choice of imaging influences prognosis. Several studies found no substantial differences in monetary cost, but LOS was found to be shorter if a diagnosis was made with point-of-care ultrasound.

Conclusion

There is a plethora of data related to imaging accuracy. However, there is minimal data regarding the effect of CT on many patient-centered outcomes. Further research could improve the patient-centeredness of ED care.

SUBMITTER: Doty E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8208654 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study objectiveWe determine whether renal point-of-care limited ultrasonography (PLUS) used in conjunction with the Sex, Timing, Origin, Nausea, Erythrocytes (STONE) clinical prediction score can aid identification of emergency department (ED) patients with uncomplicated ureteral stone or need for urologic intervention.MethodsThis was a prospective observational study of adult ED patients undergoing computed tomography (CT) scan for suspected ureteral stone. The previously validated STONE score classifies patients into risk categories of low (≈10%), moderate (≈50%), or high (≈90%) for symptomatic stone. Renal PLUS assessed for presence of hydronephrosis before CT scanning. The primary outcomes of symptomatic ureteral stone or acutely important alternative finding were abstracted from CT reports. The secondary outcome, urologic intervention, was assessed by 90-day follow-up interview and record review.ResultsOf 835 enrolled patients, ureteral stone was identified in 53%, whereas 6.5% had an acutely important alternative finding on CT. Renal PLUS modestly increased sensitivity for symptomatic stone among low and moderate STONE score categories. Moderate or greater hydronephrosis improved specificity from 67% (62% to 72%) to 98% (93% to 99%) and 42% (37% to 47%) to 92% (86% to 95%) in low- and moderate-risk patients, with likelihood ratios of 22 (95% CI, 4.2-111) and 4.9 (95% CI, 2.9-8.3), respectively. Test characteristics among high-risk patients were unchanged by renal PLUS. For urologic intervention, any hydronephrosis was 66% sensitive (57% to 74%), whereas moderate or greater hydronephrosis was 86% specific overall (83% to 89%) and 81% (69% to 90%) sensitive and 79% 95% CI, (73-84) specific among patients with the highest likelihood of symptomatic stone.ConclusionHydronephrosis on renal PLUS modestly improved risk stratification in low- and moderate-risk STONE score patients. The presence or absence of hydronephrosis among high-risk patients did not significantly alter likelihood of symptomatic stone but may aid in identifying patients more likely to require urologic intervention.