Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 2000
The diagnostic yield of intravenous urography.
Клиническое 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.
Little M A, Stafford Johnson D B, O'Callaghan J P, Walshe J J
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Intravenous urography (IVU) is considered an integral imaging component of the nephro-urological work-up in a wide array of clinical settings. At our institution there is an open-access policy with regard to requesting IVU studies.
METHODS: In a prospective, blinded observational study we undertook to assess the diagnostic yield of IVU with respect to the source of referral (i.e. Urology, Nephrology, GP, A & E, other speciality) and the presenting features, such as renal colic, haematuria, bladder outflow obstruction, recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI) etc. Two hundred consecutive patients were evaluated.
RESULTS: Overall, 23% of tests were positive. There was a highly significant difference in diagnostic yield between the groups (P<0.001 for both referral source and test indication). A positive result was most likely after referral by a kidney specialist (37.1%) and when the test indication was renal colic (42%) or haematuria (32%). The yield was <15% in all other circumstances, with 94.9% and 92.1% of GP- and other hospital speciality-initiated IVUs being negative. When investigating recurrent UTI, 91.7% of tests were negative and 86.2% were negative when the indication was bladder outflow obstruction.
CONCLUSIONS: It is suggested that an open access policy for IVU is not justified, especially when cost and the risk associated with contrast media and radiation exposure are taken into account. Our study supports the abandonment of routine IVU in the investigation of UTI and bladder outflow obstruction.
METHODS: In a prospective, blinded observational study we undertook to assess the diagnostic yield of IVU with respect to the source of referral (i.e. Urology, Nephrology, GP, A & E, other speciality) and the presenting features, such as renal colic, haematuria, bladder outflow obstruction, recurrent urinary tract infection (UTI) etc. Two hundred consecutive patients were evaluated.
RESULTS: Overall, 23% of tests were positive. There was a highly significant difference in diagnostic yield between the groups (P<0.001 for both referral source and test indication). A positive result was most likely after referral by a kidney specialist (37.1%) and when the test indication was renal colic (42%) or haematuria (32%). The yield was <15% in all other circumstances, with 94.9% and 92.1% of GP- and other hospital speciality-initiated IVUs being negative. When investigating recurrent UTI, 91.7% of tests were negative and 86.2% were negative when the indication was bladder outflow obstruction.
CONCLUSIONS: It is suggested that an open access policy for IVU is not justified, especially when cost and the risk associated with contrast media and radiation exposure are taken into account. Our study supports the abandonment of routine IVU in the investigation of UTI and bladder outflow obstruction.