We have located links that may give you full text access.
How accurate are emergency clinicians at interpreting noncontrast computed tomography for suspected renal colic?
Academic Emergency Medicine 2003 April
OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy of emergency physicians and trainees in the interpretation of noncontrast helical computed tomography (NCHCT) for suspected renal colic by examining the interrater reliability between emergency department (ED) clinicians and radiologists.
METHODS: Information was collected prospectively on all ED patients undergoing NCHCT for suspected renal colic over a 12-month period. Emergency physicians and trainees were asked to report the absence or presence of specific renal parameters (renal tract abnormality, calculus, hydroureter, hydronephrosis, perinephric stranding, and renal parenchymal edema) and nonrenal parameters (nonrenal abnormality, free gas, free fluid, and aortic diameter >3 cm). These reports were compared with the formal radiology report, which was used as the reference standard. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and kappa coefficient were calculated for each of the parameters.
RESULTS: Over the 12-month period, 212 patients underwent NCHCT for suspected renal colic, of whom 127 had both ED and formal radiological reporting. There was an excellent degree of interrater reliability between the ED clinicians and the radiologists (kappa > 0.75) for the presence of renal tract abnormality and renal tract calculus. There was intermediate interrater reliability (kappa 0.4-0.75) for nonrenal tract abnormalities, hydroureter, hydronephrosis, and perinephric stranding. Four patients had potentially significant nonrenal abnormalities missed by ED clinicians.
CONCLUSIONS: Emergency clinicians are able to identify renal calculi with a high degree of accuracy but may miss important nonrenal abnormalities. Therefore, all patients without evidence of renal tract calculus on NCHCT must have early and appropriate follow-up.
METHODS: Information was collected prospectively on all ED patients undergoing NCHCT for suspected renal colic over a 12-month period. Emergency physicians and trainees were asked to report the absence or presence of specific renal parameters (renal tract abnormality, calculus, hydroureter, hydronephrosis, perinephric stranding, and renal parenchymal edema) and nonrenal parameters (nonrenal abnormality, free gas, free fluid, and aortic diameter >3 cm). These reports were compared with the formal radiology report, which was used as the reference standard. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and kappa coefficient were calculated for each of the parameters.
RESULTS: Over the 12-month period, 212 patients underwent NCHCT for suspected renal colic, of whom 127 had both ED and formal radiological reporting. There was an excellent degree of interrater reliability between the ED clinicians and the radiologists (kappa > 0.75) for the presence of renal tract abnormality and renal tract calculus. There was intermediate interrater reliability (kappa 0.4-0.75) for nonrenal tract abnormalities, hydroureter, hydronephrosis, and perinephric stranding. Four patients had potentially significant nonrenal abnormalities missed by ED clinicians.
CONCLUSIONS: Emergency clinicians are able to identify renal calculi with a high degree of accuracy but may miss important nonrenal abnormalities. Therefore, all patients without evidence of renal tract calculus on NCHCT must have early and appropriate follow-up.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
Perioperative echocardiographic strain analysis: what anesthesiologists should know.Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2024 April 11
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app