Ultrasound for acute pyelonephritis: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is little consensus regarding the indications and utility of urinary tract imaging and type of imaging to perform in patients presenting with acute pyelonephritis (APN). AIMS: The aims of this systematic review were to, among patients with APN, (i) identify the proportion of patients investigated with ultrasound (US), (ii) identify the proportion of abnormal US and (iii) identify the proportion of patients with a change in management resulting from abnormal US. METHODS: A comprehensive search covered two electronic databases (Medline and EMBASE), with selection of studies performed independently by two investigators. Inclusion criteria were English language APN diagnosis and quantification of patients assessed with US or abnormal US results. Quality appraisal used the Newcastle-Ottawa instrument. RESULTS: There were 35 studies included. The proportion of patients assessed with US was reported in 16 manuscripts and ranged from 20% to 94%, with significant heterogeneity and publication bias. The proportion of abnormal US was reported in 31 manuscripts and ranged from 7% to 79%. The proportion of abnormal US leading to change in management was reported in five studies and ranged from 7% to 59%. There was marked heterogeneity among studies included in all three subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with APN are commonly investigated with US, but only a small proportion have abnormalities and appear to be associated with changes in clinical management. The use of routine US for APN is therefore questioned. The identification of clinical variables for appropriate selection of patients to investigate with US requires further research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".