Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute ureteric colic is a common cause of severe and debilitating pain. Theoretically, increasing fluid flow through the affected kidney might expedite stone passage, thereby improving symptoms more quickly. Unfortunately, for interventions such as high volume intravenous or oral fluids and diuretics that are aimed at doing this, the efficacy and safety is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To look at the benefits and harms of diuretics and high volume (above maintenance) intravenous or oral fluid therapy for treating adult patients presenting with uncomplicated acute ureteric colic. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's specialised register (July 2004), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL - The Cochrane Library, issue 3, 2004), MEDLINE (1966 - July 2004), EMBASE (1980 - July 2004) and handsearched reference lists of nephrology and urology textbooks, review articles, relevant trials, and abstracts from nephrology scientific meetings. We sent letters seeking information about unpublished or incomplete trials to investigators known to be involved in previous trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTS (including the first period of randomised cross-over studies) looking at diuretics or high volume intravenous or oral fluids for treating uncomplicated acute ureteric colic in adult patients presenting to the emergency department for the first time during that episode were to be included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and the results expressed as relative risk (RR) for dichotomous outcomes or weight mean difference (WMD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: One trial (60 participants) was identified. This study compared no fluids for six hours versus three litres of IV fluids received over a six hour period. There was no significant difference in pain at six hours (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.57), surgical stone removal (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.41 to 3.51) or manipulation by cystoscopy (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.21 to 2.13). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Unfortunately, we could find no credible evidence in the literature regarding either of these two treatment modalities. Given their potential positive impact, the role of diuretics and high volume fluid therapy in acute ureteric colic should be examined to determine their safety and efficacy in facilitating stone passage.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".