Renal Colic: Comparison of Use and Outcomes of Unenhanced Helical CT for Emergency Investigation in 1998 and 2002
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
PURPOSE: To determine retrospectively whether there had been any change between 1998 and 2002 in the use and outcome of computed tomography (CT) performed in the emergency department for patients presenting with symptoms of renal colic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Approval from the Research Ethics Board was obtained, and informed consent was waived. All CT examinations ordered from the emergency department of a tertiary care hospital and performed from July to December 1998 and July to December 2002 were identified. Reports were reviewed, and results were categorized as either (a) positive for urinary tract calculus disease (category I), (b) indicative of an alternate diagnosis (category II), or (c) negative for findings to account for the patient's symptoms (category III). The corresponding emergency department charts were reviewed for urine dipstick results for hematuria and for patient history of stone disease. For statistical analysis, chi2 testing and odds ratios were used. RESULTS: During the 6-month period in 1998, 179 CT examinations were performed in patients who were admitted to the emergency department. During the same period in 2002, 234 CT examinations were performed. After correction for the total number of emergency department visits, it was determined that there was a relative increase of 21.3% (95% confidence interval: -0.0009, 0.47) in number of CT examinations performed in the emergency department. A total of 117 (65.4%) of 179 CT studies in 1998 and 153 (65.4%) of 234 CT studies in 2002 demonstrated renal calculus disease (category I), nine (5.0%) of 179 CT studies in 1998 and 17 (7.3%) of 234 CT studies in 2002 were used to identify an alternate diagnosis for patient symptoms (category II), and 53 (29.6%) of 179 CT studies in 1998 and 64 (27.4%) of 234 CT studies in 2002 were negative (category III). There were no significant differences between the rates of category I, II, or III results and the positivity rates for hematuria and urinary tract stone history during 1998 and 2002. CONCLUSION: Despite a definite trend of increased CT use during 1998 and 2002, there was no significant decrease in the rates of positive renal colic results or alternate diagnoses.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».