Urologia internationalis · 2015
Accuracy of unenhanced computerized tomography interpretation by urologists in patients with acute flank pain.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sancak Eyup Burak, Resorlu Mustafa, Celik Orcun, Resorlu Berkan, Gulpinar Murat Tolga, Akbas Alpaslan, Karakan Tolga, Bayrak Omer, Kabar Mucahit, Eroglu Muzaffer, Ozdemir Huseyin
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim was to compare the findings of non-contrast computerized tomography (NCCT) evaluated by urology specialists with the findings of experienced radiologists, who are accepted as a standard reference for patients who present with acute flank pain.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five hundred patients evaluated with NCCT were included in the study. The NCCT images of these patients were evaluated by both radiologists and urology specialists in terms of the presence of calculus, size of calculus, the location of calculus, the presence of hydronephrosis, and pathologies other than calculus, and the results were compared.
RESULTS: The evaluations of urology specialists and standard reference radiology specialists are consistent with each other in terms of the presence of calculus (kappa [κ]: 0.904), categorical stone size (κ: 0.81), the location of calculus (κ: 0.88), and hydronephrosis (κ: 0.94). However, the evaluations of urology specialists in detecting pathologies other than calculus, which may cause acute flank pain or accompany renal colic, were found to be inadequate (κ: 0.37). The false-negative rate of detecting pathologies outside of the urinary system by the urology specialists is calculated as 0.86.
CONCLUSION: Although the urology specialists can evaluate the findings related to calculus sufficiently with NCCT, they may not discover pathologies outside of the urinary system.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Five hundred patients evaluated with NCCT were included in the study. The NCCT images of these patients were evaluated by both radiologists and urology specialists in terms of the presence of calculus, size of calculus, the location of calculus, the presence of hydronephrosis, and pathologies other than calculus, and the results were compared.
RESULTS: The evaluations of urology specialists and standard reference radiology specialists are consistent with each other in terms of the presence of calculus (kappa [κ]: 0.904), categorical stone size (κ: 0.81), the location of calculus (κ: 0.88), and hydronephrosis (κ: 0.94). However, the evaluations of urology specialists in detecting pathologies other than calculus, which may cause acute flank pain or accompany renal colic, were found to be inadequate (κ: 0.37). The false-negative rate of detecting pathologies outside of the urinary system by the urology specialists is calculated as 0.86.
CONCLUSION: Although the urology specialists can evaluate the findings related to calculus sufficiently with NCCT, they may not discover pathologies outside of the urinary system.