MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403811655 · doi:10.1681/asn.2024cce1xk7y

Point-of-Care Ultrasonography for the Diagnosis of Hydronephrosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4403811655 on OpenAlexaff
Dominic Wang, Michael Ke Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydronephrosisUltrasonographyMeta-analysisMedicineRadiologySystematic reviewIntensive care medicineMEDLINEPathologyInternal medicineUrinary systemBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Hydronephrosis is a common sign of urinary tract obstruction detected on imaging. The diagnostic test accuracy of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) for hydronephrosis is uncertain. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for observational studies and randomized controlled trials without language restrictions from inception until April 2024. We included studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of POCUS for hydronephrosis compared to formal radiographic imaging as the reference standard (i.e., ultrasound, computed tomography, and/or intravenous pyelogram performed by a radiology technician or radiologist). We pooled sensitivity and specificity using random-effects models and reported their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: We included 22 observational studies (n=4893). The pooled population included patients presenting with flank pain (13 studies), acute kidney injury (AKI) (2 studies), either flank pain or AKI (2 studies), or were unspecified (5 studies). Twenty studies were conducted in the emergency department, 1 study was conducted in hospital wards, and the remaining study was conducted in both an intensive care unit and hospital wards. POCUS had a pooled sensitivity of 0.83 (95% CI 0.79-0.87) and specificity of 0.80 (95% CI 0.74-0.86) for the diagnosis of hydronephrosis when compared to formal imaging. In a subgroup analysis of 3 studies (n=1078), the diagnosis of any severity of hydronephrosis on formal imaging based on moderate to severe hydronephrosis on POCUS demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.32 (95% CI 0.28-0.37) and specificity of 0.96 (95% CI 0.93-0.98). Conclusion: POCUS has moderate sensitivity and specificity for hydronephrosis and may be used to rule out urinary tract obstruction in patients with a low pre-test probability. Moderate to severe hydronephrosis on POCUS is highly specific for hydronephrosis detected on formal imaging.Sensitivity and specificity forest plot

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0180.027
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→