MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410967779 · doi:10.1089/end.2024.0657

The Impact of Timing of Definitive Intervention for Patients with Acute Renal Colic: A Population-Based Study

2025· article· en· W4410967779 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Ordon, Sarah E. Bota, Yuguang Kang, Blayne Welk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endourology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreLawson Health Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRenal colicPercutaneous nephrolithotomyPropensity score matchingEmergency departmentConfidence intervalRelative riskUreteroscopyPopulationStentKidney stonesInternal medicineSurgeryPercutaneousUreter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: To determine the impact of early intervention (EI) vs delayed intervention/expectant management for patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with renal colic. Methods: We conducted a population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada, utilizing linked administrative health data. Patients presenting to an ED with renal colic between April 1, 2010, and June 30, 2020, were included. Patients were divided into two groups. The EI group underwent shockwave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy, or percutaneous nephrolithotomy within 2 weeks of presentation. The delayed intervention/expectant management (non-EI) group represented all other patients, including those who did not receive intervention. Patients were followed forward in time for 3 months in the EI group and for 4 weeks postintervention or 3 months (whichever was longer) in the non-EI group, to assess for our outcomes. The outcomes included additional ED visits, hospitalizations, or imaging studies, stent/nephrostomy insertion, and urologist/primary care visits. These outcomes were compared across the two groups using a propensity score-matched generalized linear model with generalized estimating equations. Results: There were 397,185 index renal colic events (after propensity score matching EI = 27,741, non-EI = 80,230). The EI group had a lower risk for additional ED visits (relative risk (RR): 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68–0.72, p < 0.001) and hospital admissions (RR: 0.52, 95% CI: 0.50–0.55, p < 0.001) compared with the non-EI group. Similarly, the EI group had a lower risk for stent (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.54–0.71, p < 0.001) or nephrostomy insertion (RR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.42–0.57, p < 0.001), however, there was no difference for additional imaging. The EI group had a slightly increased risk for urologist/primary care visit (RR: 1.02, 95% CI: 1.02–1.03, p < 0.001). In the non-EI group, 17.31% underwent eventual intervention. Conclusion: Our study demonstrated a benefit to EI for those presenting with renal colic to the ED, but potentially with the risk of exposing some patients to unneeded treatment. These findings could influence practice patterns and guideline recommendations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EndourologySame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207