This preprint is under consideration at BMC Urology. Preprints are preliminary reports that have not undergone peer review. They should not be considered conclusive, used to inform clinical practice, or referenced by the media as validated information.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Prevalence of microhematuria in renal colic and urolithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bruno Minotti
Kantonsspital Sankt Gallen
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4820-9968
License:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License
Background This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the prevalence of microhematuria in patients presenting with suspected acute renal colic and/or confirmed urolithiasis at the emergency department.
Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted to find relevant data on prevalence of microhematuria in patients with suspected acute renal colic and/or confirmed urolithiasis. Data from each study regarding study design, patient characteristics and prevalence of microhematuria were retrieved. A random effect-model was used for the pooled analyses.
Results Forty-nine articles including 15’860 patients were selected through the literature search. The pooled microhematuria prevalence was 77% (95%CI: 73-80%) and 84% (95%CI: 80-87%) for suspected acute renal colic and confirmed urolithiasis, respectively. This proportion was much higher when the dipstick was used as diagnostic test (80% and 90% for acute renal colic and urolithiasis, respectively) compared to the microscopic urinalysis (74% and 78% for acute renal colic and urolithiasis, respectively).
Conclusions This meta-analysis revealed a high prevalence of microhematuria in patients with acute renal colic (77%), including those with confirmed urolithiasis (84%). Intending this prevalence as sensitivity, we reached moderate values, which make microhematuria alone a poor diagnostic test for acute renal colic or urolithiasis. Microhematuria could possibly still important to assess the risk in patients with renal colic.
Keywords
renal colic, urolithiasis, microhematuria, stone score
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Renal colic is caused by the presence of stones in the urinary tract and it is characterized by sudden onset of severe loin pain, radiating to the flank, groin, and testes or labia majora [1]. Incidence amounts to 240 per 100’000 persons [2] with a prevalence up to 10%; men are commonly more affected than women with a ratio of 3-2:1 [3]. Lifetime risk is up to 19% in men and 9% in women [4], varying depending on geographic location and increasing constantly over last years [5]. Guidelines for the diagnostic pathway suggest assessing (micro)hematuria, while the gold standard of imaging is unenhanced multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) [1]. As diagnostic tool the STONE Score was developed and validated; this score includes parameters as sex, duration of pain prior to presentation, race, nausea, vomiting and microhematuria [6]. Microhematuria prevalence in suspected renal colic has been studied in several trials, ranging from 55% [7] to 93% [8, 9]. In order to better understand the difference existing in prevalence range, we performed a meta-analysis of studies dealing with microhematuria by suspected acute renal colic and/or confirmed urolithiasis.
This systematic review and meta-analysis conforms to the statement on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses [10].
2.1 Search strategy
A literature search of the electronic PubMed/MEDLINE database and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), without language restriction, was carried out from inception to October 11, 2018. A search algorithm was established using a combination of the following terms: A) renal colic AND urolithiasis (Problem), B) urinalysis (Intervention), C) microhematuria (Outcome). The final search query is reported in Appendix 1. Reference lists of the retrieved articles were also screened for additional studies.
2.2 Eligibility criteria
We included in this systematic review and meta-analysis studies which filled the following inclusion criteria: a) original article published in peer-reviewed journal; b) studies including adults only; c) patients presenting with acute renal colic at the emergency department; d) studies reporting data on microhematuria.
Exclusion criteria were: a) articles not within the field of interest of this review; b) review articles, letters or editorials; c) case reports or case series (less than 10 patients included); d) articles with possible patient data overlap.
2.3 Study selection
Titles and abstracts of the retrieved studies were independently reviewed by two researchers (MP, GT), applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria mentioned above. Articles were rejected if they were clearly ineligible. The full texts of the potentially eligible articles were reviewed independently by the same researchers to confirm or exclude their eligibility for inclusion. Disagreements were resolved in a consensus meeting.
2.4 Data extraction
For each included study, one author (MP) manually extracted data relevant to the review aims using a customized form. Information regarding basic study data (authors, year of publication, country of origin, type of study), patient characteristics (number of patients, mean age, gender), methods (microhematuria test, microhematuria definition) and outcomes (number of patients with microhematuria, microhematuria prevalence) were retrieved. The number of patients with microhematuria and microhematuria prevalence were also extracted for patients with confirmed urolithiasis, where available. Diagnostic methods for detection of stones were also retrieved. One other author (GT) independently checked all extracted data.
2.5 Outcome measures
The primary outcome was the percentage of microhematuria among patients presenting with suspected acute renal colic at the emergency department. The secondary outcome was the percentage of microhematuria among patients presenting with acute renal colic and confirmed urolithiasis at the emergency department.
2.6 Quality assessment
The overall quality of the studies included in the systematic review was critically appraised based on the revised “Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies” tool (QUADAS-2). This tool comprises four domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain was assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first three domains were also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Two authors have performed the risk of bias assessment (GT and MP) reaching a consensus.
2.7 Statistical analysis
Microhematuria prevalence was defined as the ratio between the number of patients with suspected acute renal colic with microhematuria detected by urinalysis or dipstick and the total number of patients with suspected acute renal colic who underwent the analysis. This proportion was calculated also for patients presenting with acute renal colic and confirmed urolithiasis.
Pooled analyses of the proportion of microhematuria detected by urinalysis or dipstick were performed using data retrieved from the selected studies. When microhematuria was assessed using both urinalysis and dipstick, the test with the better outcome was chosen. Subgroup analyses taking into account the microhematuria test were planned.
A random-effects model was used for statistical pooling of the data, taking into account the heterogeneity between studies. The different weight of each study in the pooled analysis was related to the different sample size. Pooled data were presented with their respective 95% confidence interval (95%CI) values, and data were displayed using plots.
Heterogeneity was estimated by using the I-square index (I2), which describes the percentage of variation across studies that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance [11] and considered significant if I-square test was higher than 50%.
Publication bias was assessed through the Egger’s test [12].
Statistical analyses were performed using the StatsDirect software version 3 (StatsDirect Ltd., Cambridge, UK).
3.1 Literature search
The literature search from PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL databases yielded a total of 1,377 records. After reviewing titles and abstracts, 77 were selected as potentially eligible articles. The full text was retrieved for all. Following eligibility’s assessment, 31 articles did not meet the inclusion criteria and were excluded from the systematic review. Within the selected articles, screening of the reference lists allowed to add 3 additional records. Finally, 49 studies [7-9, 13-58] including 15’860 patients were identified as potentially relevant and were selected for the systematic review and meta-analysis. All of the included studies except two [30, 50] were published in English. These studies covered the period from inception to October 11, 2018. Search results and articles’ selection are displayed in a PRISMA flow chart (Figure 1).
3.2 Selected studies
The characteristics of selected studies are reported in Table 1. The studies were conducted in different countries worldwide (Europe, North America, Asia, Africa). The sample size of the included trials ranged from 32 to 2,218 adults presenting to the emergency department or urology clinic with acute renal colic. Most of the studies were observational with a prospective (19) or retrospective (29) or mixed (1) design.
Microhematuria was tested by urinalysis in 32 studies, urine dipstick in 10 and both methods in 7. Definition of microhematuria was different among the included studies. Six studies included also patients presenting with macroscopic hematuria [14, 17, 19, 22, 26, 50]. Details on the microhematuria test are reported in Table 2.
3.3 Quality assessment
Overall quality assessment of the studies included in the systematic review according to QUADAS-2 tool is reported in Supplemental Figure 1.
3.4 Microhematuria prevalence and suspected acute renal colic
Primary outcome characteristics on microhematuria prevalence in patients with suspected acute renal colic are summarized in Table 2 and Figure 2.
Prevalence of microhematuria ranged from 35% to 94%, with a pooled estimate of 77% (95%CI: 73-80%) (Figure 2). The heterogeneity among the included studies was significant (I2 = 96%). A publication bias was detected by Egger’s test (p < 0.0001).
Performing sub-group analyses taking into account different microhematuria tests, the pooled prevalence of microhematuria using urinalysis or urine dipstick was 74% (95%CI: 69-78%) and 80% (95%CI: 74-86%) respectively, without significant difference between two groups.
3.5 Microhematuria prevalence and confirmed urolithiasis
Secondary outcomes regarding main findings on microhematuria prevalence in patients with acute renal colic and confirmed urolithiasis are summarized in Table 3 and Figure 3.
Prevalence of microhematuria ranged from 44% to 100%, with a pooled estimate of 84% (95%CI: 80-87%) (Figure 3). Heterogeneity among the included studies was significant (I2 = 93%). A publication bias was detected by Egger’s test (p = 0.0008).
Performing sub-group analyses taking into account different microhematuria tests, the pooled prevalence of microhematuria using urinalysis or urine dipstick was 78% (95%CI: 74-82%) and 90% (95%CI: 83-95%), respectively.
Many studies have evaluated the prevalence of microhematuria in patients with suspected acute renal colic (Table 1); this meta-analysis pooled data reported in the published studies to derive a more precise assessment. Overall, this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed a high prevalence of microhematuria in patients with acute renal colic (77%), including those with confirmed urolithiasis (84%). However, intending this prevalence as sensitivity, we reached moderate values, which make microhematuria alone a poor diagnostic test for acute renal colic, respectively for urolithiasis. In our meta-analysis heterogeneity was high; indeed, we found a poor definition regarding urine analysis across studies (see positive microhematuria definition in Table 2), with different cells count on microscopy, but also with various dipstick brands. Argyropoulos et al. [8] carried out a microscopic urinalysis when the dipstick was in doubt or with blood traces; microhematuria was confirmed in all of these cases. Thus, the authors concluded that urinary dipstick test is not inferior to microscopy. Bataille et al. [59] compared the sensitivity of urinary dipstick with microscopy and flow cytometry on in vitro contaminated human urine with human blood of volunteers at different concentrations. Urinary dipstick reached the best sensitivity, probably due to the ability to detect red blood cells after lysis, and was suggested as preferred test for screening of hematuria. Same results were previously reported by Kobayashi et al. [40] and Press et al. [52]. De facto we detected a trend toward a higher pooled prevalence of microhematuria by using urine dipstick compared to microscopic urinalysis. Some studies analyzed the characteristics of patients with renal colic and negative microhematuria, the most without correlation between size, location or composition of the stones, or grade of the obstruction [44, 52, 55, 57]. Kobayashi et al. [40] found a relation between hematuria and pain onset, with the highest incidence of negative hematuria on day 3 and 4. Kim et al. [13] found negative microhematuria in patients with lower stones or elevated serum blood urea nitrogen (BUN). Mefford et al. [18] showed an increased prevalence of hydronephrosis in patients with urolithiasis and negative microhematuria. As hydronephrosis is easy to screen with ultrasonography, Daniel et al. [60] developed the STONE PLUS Score with addition of point-of-care ultrasound of the kidney to the original STONE Score. Presence of hydronephrosis improved the specificity up to 98% and helped to identify patients requiring urological intervention, without remarkably increasing risk stratification.
Considering the moderate sensitivity of microhematuria in patients with renal colic, Xafis et al. [31] suggested to perform a MDCT without urinalysis as a prerequisite. This approach seems to show the best diagnostic accuracy; however, it would increase the number of MDCT with more costs and radiation exposure. Therefore, the focus should be placed in complicated urolithiasis (e.g., obstructive pyelonephritis) or dangerous alternative diagnosis. Rucker et al. [61] reported numerous diseases mimicking urolithiasis. Moore et al. [6] found a lower likelihood of a dangerous alternative diagnosis (< 2%) by using high STONE scores and suggested for this group the possibility to initially avoid compute tomography because till 90% of stones < 7 mm will pass through spontaneously [62]. With the same approach the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) suggests in the Choosing Wisely group to avoid ordering computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis in young except healthy emergency department patients (age <50) with known histories of kidney stones, or ureterolithiasis, presenting with symptoms consistent with uncomplicated renal colic [63]. In fact, taking all studies together, the prevalence of patients with renal colic having effectively urolithiasis was 66% (median, IQR 52-76), which means a higher pre-test probability in the studied population and so a good discerning capacity of the treating physicians. Anyway, alternative diagnosis mimicking renal colic have to be taken into account. Commons diagnosis are pyelonephritis, appendicitis, diverticulitis, adnexal cysts/tumor, cholecystitis, lumbago/sciatica. Rarer pneumonia, lymphoma or aortic dissection/aneurysm. However CT scan negative rate reach till 31% [42] and Zwank et al. [27] could show that CT scan didn't change management when providers did not expect it would. Finally, alternative diagnosis mimicking renal colic could be found by ultrasonography at least in one study with the same accuracy as MDCT [64].
Some limitations and biases of our meta-analysis should be taken into account. We have no registered a protocol of the systematic review on a database such as PROSPERO. We included some retrospective studies because of the good data quality. Heterogeneity among studies may represent a potential source of bias in a meta-analysis. This heterogeneity is likely to arise through baseline differences among patients in the included studies (Table 1), or diversity in methodological aspects between different studies (Table 2). Unfortunately, we detected a significant heterogeneity in our meta-analysis. We believe that, beyond the various microhematuria tests (urinalysis vs dipstick), the most important source of heterogeneity could be the different definitions of microhematuria (Table 2). Finally, we found presence of publication bias.
In conclusion, microhematuria searched with urine dipstick showed higher diagnostic sensitivity and should be used in this setting as a “gold standard”; it is needed to calculate the STONE score, which can help to identify patients with decreased likelihood of a differential diagnosis, reducing costs and radiation exposure of MDCT. Finally, the concomitant use of ultrasound could increase the specificity till 98% by hydronephrosis, identify patients requiring urological intervention and help to find alternative diagnosis in each risk group. Especially for searching differential diagnosis with ultrasound in patients with suspected renal colic, further studies should be undertaken. Larger prospective multicenter validation study of the STONE score could provide more definitive evidence.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable
Consent for publication
Not applicable
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable
Competing interests
No competing interests to declare
Funding
None
Authors’ contribution
Concept: BM, AS. Literature search: MP, GT. Statistical analysis: MP, GT. Data interpretation: MP, GT, BM, AS. Manuscript writing: MP, GT, BM, AS. Critical review and final approval: all authors.
Acknowledgments
This work was carried out in collaboration with the Clinical Trial Unit of Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (Ticino, Switzerland).
[1] Bultitude M, Rees J. Management of renal colic. Bmj. 2012;345:e5499.
[2] Tasian GE, Ross ME, Song L, Sas DJ, Keren R, Denburg MR, et al. Annual Incidence of Nephrolithiasis among Children and Adults in South Carolina from 1997 to 2012. Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN. 2016;11:488-96.
[3] Scales CD, Jr., Smith AC, Hanley JM, Saigal CS. Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. European urology. 2012;62:160-5.
[4] Curhan G. 47 - Nephrolithiasis. In: Gilbert SJ, Weiner DE, editors. National Kidney Foundation Primer on Kidney Diseases (Sixth Edition). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 2014. p. 405-11.
[5] Romero V, Akpinar H, Assimos DG. Kidney stones: a global picture of prevalence, incidence, and associated risk factors. Reviews in urology. 2010;12:e86-96.
[6] Moore CL, Bomann S, Daniels B, Luty S, Molinaro A, Singh D, et al. Derivation and validation of a clinical prediction rule for uncomplicated ureteral stone--the STONE score: retrospective and prospective observational cohort studies. Bmj. 2014;348:g2191.
[7] Inci MF, Ozkan F, Bozkurt S, Sucakli MH, Altunoluk B, Okumus M. Correlation of volume, position of stone, and hydronephrosis with microhematuria in patients with solitary urolithiasis. Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research. 2013;19:295-9.
[8] Argyropoulos A, Farmakis A, Doumas K, Lykourinas M. The presence of microscopic hematuria detected by urine dipstick test in the evaluation of patients with renal colic. Urological research. 2004;32:294-7.
[9] Ooi SB, Kour NW, Mahadev A. Haematuria in the diagnosis of urinary calculi. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore. 1998;27:210-4.
[10] Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.
[11] Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in medicine. 2002;21:1539-58.
[12] Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA. A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Statistics in medicine. 2006;25:3443-57.
[13] Kim TH, Oh SH, Park KN, Kim HJ, Youn CS, Kim SH, et al. Factors associated with absent microhematuria in symptomatic urinary stone patients. The American journal of emergency medicine. 2018.
[14] Desai V, Cox M, Deshmukh S, Roth CG. Contrast-enhanced or noncontrast CT for renal colic: utilizing urinalysis and patient history of urolithiasis to decide. Emergency radiology. 2018;25:455-60.
[15] Turk H, Un S. Predictive factors for stone disease in patients with renal colic. Archivio italiano di urologia, andrologia : organo ufficiale [di] Societa italiana di ecografia urologica e nefrologica. 2017;89:143-5.
[16] Shrestha R, Bista Y, Khan A. Current Diagnostic Approach and Initial Treatment Patterns for Renal Colic in Emergency Department. Journal of Nepal Health Research Council. 2017;15:38-43.
[17] Odoemene CA, Okere P, Ugonabo MC. Ureterolithiasis: Management in an environment with limited facilities. Nigerian journal of clinical practice. 2017;20:622-8.
[18] Mefford JM, Tungate RM, Amini L, Suh D, Anderson CL, Rudkin SE, et al. A Comparison of Urolithiasis in the Presence and Absence of Microscopic Hematuria in the Emergency Department. The western journal of emergency medicine. 2017;18:775-9.
[19] Rapp DE, Wood NL, Bassignani M, Gergoudis L, Caulkins S, Kramolowsky EV. Clinical variables and stone detection in patients with flank pain. The Canadian journal of urology. 2016;23:8441-5.
[20] Park YH, Jung RB, Lee YG, Hong CK, Ahn JH, Shin TY, et al. Does the use of bedside ultrasonography reduce emergency department length of stay for patients with renal colic?: a pilot study. Clinical and experimental emergency medicine. 2016;3:197-203.
[21] Hernandez N, Song Y, Noble VE, Eisner BH. Predicting ureteral stones in emergency department patients with flank pain: an external validation of the STONE score. World journal of urology. 2016;34:1443-6.
[22] Fukuhara H, Ichiyanagi O, Kakizaki H, Naito S, Tsuchiya N. Clinical relevance of seasonal changes in the prevalence of ureterolithiasis in the diagnosis of renal colic. Urolithiasis. 2016;44:529-37.
[23] Dorfman M, Chan SB, Hayek K, Hill C. Pyuria and Urine Cultures in Patients with Acute Renal Colic. The Journal of emergency medicine. 2016;51:358-64.
[24] Yan JW, McLeod SL, Edmonds ML, Sedran RJ, Theakston KD. Risk Factors Associated with Urologic Intervention in Emergency Department Patients with Suspected Renal Colic. The Journal of emergency medicine. 2015;49:130-5.
[25] Lee DH, Chang IH, Kim JW, Chi BH, Park SB. Usefulness of Nonenhanced Computed Tomography for Diagnosing Urolithiasis without Pyuria in the Emergency Department. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:810971.
[26] Hall TC, Stephenson JA, Rangaraj A, Mulcahy K, Rajesh A. Imaging protocol for suspected ureteric calculi in patients presenting to the emergency department. Clinical radiology. 2015;70:243-7.
[27] Zwank MD, Ho BM, Gresback D, Stuck LH, Salzman JG, Woster WR. Does computed tomographic scan affect diagnosis and management of patients with suspected renal colic? The American journal of emergency medicine. 2014;32:367-70.
[28] Abdel-Gawad M, Kadasne R, Anjikar C, Elsobky E. Value of Color Doppler ultrasound, kub and urinalysis in diagnosis of renal colic due to ureteral stones. International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. 2014;40:513-9.
[29] Lallas CD, Liu XS, Chiura AN, Das AK, Bagley DH. Urolithiasis location and size and the association with microhematuria and stone-related symptoms. Journal of endourology. 2011;25:1909-13.
[30] Perez JA, Palmes Mde L, Ferrer JF, Urdangarain OO, Nunez AB. Renal colic at emergency departments. Epidemiologic, diagnostic and etiopathogenic study. Archivos espanoles de urologia. 2010;63:173-87.
[31] Xafis K, Thalmann G, Benneker LM, Stoupis C, Buggy DJ, Zimmermann H, et al. Forget the blood, not the stone! Microhaematuria in acute urolithiasis and the role of early CT scanning. Emergency medicine journal : EMJ. 2008;25:640-4.
[32] Serinken M, Karcioglu O, Turkcuer I, Ozkan HI, Keysan MK, Bukiran A. Analysis of clinical and demographic characteristics of patients presenting with renal colic in the emergency department. BMC research notes. 2008;1:79.
[33] Cupisti A, Pasquali E, Lusso S, Carlino F, Orsitto E, Melandri R. Renal colic in Pisa emergency department: epidemiology, diagnostics and treatment patterns. Internal and Emergency Medicine. 2008;3:241-4.
[34] Matani YS, Al-Ghazo MA. Role of helical nonenhanced computed tomography in the evaluation of acute flank pain. Asian journal of surgery. 2007;30:45-51.
[35] Kartal M, Eray O, Erdogru T, Yilmaz S. Prospective validation of a current algorithm including bedside US performed by emergency physicians for patients with acute flank pain suspected for renal colic. Emergency medicine journal : EMJ. 2006;23:341-4.
[36] Kirpalani A, Khalili K, Lee S, Haider MA. Renal colic: comparison of use and outcomes of unenhanced helical CT for emergency investigation in 1998 and 2002. Radiology. 2005;236:554-8.
[37] Gaspari RJ, Horst K. Emergency ultrasound and urinalysis in the evaluation of flank pain. Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. 2005;12:1180-4.
[38] Unal D, Yeni E, Karaoglanoglu M, Verit A, Karatas OF. Can conventional examinations contribute to the diagnostic power of unenhanced helical computed tomography in urolithiasis? Urologia internationalis. 2003;70:31-5.
[39] Tack D, Sourtzis S, Delpierre I, de Maertelaer V, Gevenois PA. Low-dose unenhanced multidetector CT of patients with suspected renal colic. AJR American journal of roentgenology. 2003;180:305-11.
[40] Kobayashi T, Nishizawa K, Mitsumori K, Ogura K. Impact of date of onset on the absence of hematuria in patients with acute renal colic. The Journal of urology. 2003;170:1093-6.
[41] Eray O, Cubuk MS, Oktay C, Yilmaz S, Cete Y, Ersoy FF. The efficacy of urinalysis, plain films, and spiral CT in ED patients with suspected renal colic. The American journal of emergency medicine. 2003;21:152-4.
[42] Luchs JS, Katz DS, Lane MJ, Mellinger BC, Lumerman JH, Stillman CA, et al. Utility of hematuria testing in patients with suspected renal colic: correlation with unenhanced helical CT results. Urology. 2002;59:839-42.
[43] Hamm M, Knopfle E, Wartenberg S, Wawroschek F, Weckermann D, Harzmann R. Low dose unenhanced helical computerized tomography for the evaluation of acute flank pain. The Journal of urology. 2002;167:1687-91.
[44] Li J, Kennedy D, Levine M, Kumar A, Mullen J. Absent hematuria and expensive computerized tomography: case characteristics of emergency urolithiasis. The Journal of urology. 2001;165:782-4.
[45] Hamm M, Wawroschek F, Weckermann D, Knopfle E, Hackel T, Hauser H, et al. Unenhanced helical computed tomography in the evaluation of acute flank pain. European urology. 2001;39:460-5.
[46] Richards JR, Christman CA. Intravenous urography in the emergency department: when do we need it? European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine. 1999;6:129-33.
[47] Bove P, Kaplan D, Dalrymple N, Rosenfield AT, Verga M, Anderson K, et al. Reexamining the value of hematuria testing in patients with acute flank pain. The Journal of urology. 1999;162:685-7.
[48] Ghali AM, Elmalik EM, Ibrahim AI, Abdulhameed E, el Tahir MI. Cost-effective emergency diagnosis plan for urinary stone patients presenting with ureteric colic. European urology. 1998;33:529-37.
[49] Eskelinen M, Ikonen J, Lipponen P. Usefulness of history-taking, physical examination and diagnostic scoring in acute renal colic. European urology. 1998;34:467-73.
[50] Gimondo P, Mastropasqua G, Cremona A, Mucciaccio C. [Early and systematic use of ultrasonography in emergency patients with renal colic: analysis of the actual diagnostic efficacy]. La Radiologia medica. 1996;92:421-4.
[51] Boyd R, Gray AJ. Role of the plain radiograph and urinalysis in acute ureteric colic. Journal of accident & emergency medicine. 1996;13:390-1.
[52] Press SM, Smith AD. Incidence of negative hematuria in patients with acute urinary lithiasis presenting to the emergency room with flank pain. Urology. 1995;45:753-7.
[53] Chia SJ, Lau W, Tan PK, Consigliere D, Li MK, Low CH. Ureteric colic: value of initial investigations and the outcome. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore. 1995;24:366-9.
[54] Elton TJ, Roth CS, Berquist TH, Silverstein MD. A clinical prediction rule for the diagnosis of ureteral calculi in emergency departments. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:57-62.
[55] Stewart DP, Kowalski R, Wong P, Krome R. Microscopic hematuria and calculus-related ureteral obstruction. The Journal of emergency medicine. 1990;8:693-5.
[56] Freeland P. No haematuria--no IVU. Irish journal of medical science. 1987;156:270-1.
[57] Dunn PM, Keller RT, Jones SR. The absence of hematuria in patients with symptomatic urinary tract stones. The Western journal of medicine. 1985;142:717-9.
[58] Bishop NL. The influence of emergency urography and haematuria on the diagnosis of ureteric colic. Clinical radiology. 1980;31:605-10.
[59] Bataille A, Wetzstein M, Hertig A, Vimont S, Rondeau E, Galichon P. Evidence of dipstick superiority over urine microscopy analysis for detection of hematuria. BMC research notes. 2016;9:435.
[60] Daniels B, Gross CP, Molinaro A, Singh D, Luty S, Jessey R, et al. STONE PLUS: Evaluation of Emergency Department Patients With Suspected Renal Colic, Using a Clinical Prediction Tool Combined With Point-of-Care Limited Ultrasonography. Annals of emergency medicine. 2016;67:439-48.
[61] Rucker CM, Menias CO, Bhalla S. Mimics of renal colic: alternative diagnoses at unenhanced helical CT. Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. 2004;24 Suppl 1:S11-28; discussion S-33.
[62] Tao RZ, Qin ZQ, Liu FD, Lv JL. Efficacy and Safety of Tamsulosin in the Medical Expulsion Therapy for Distal Ureteral Calculi: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials. Urol J. 2019;16:224-31.
[63] Ten Things Physicians and Patients Should Question American College of Emergency Physicians 2013-2014.
[64] Catalano O, Nunziata A, Sandomenico F, Siani A. Acute flank pain: comparison of unenhanced helical CT and ultrasonography in detecting causes other than ureterolithiasis. Emergency radiology. 2002;9:146-54.
Table 1: Basic study and patient characteristics. Patients presenting with acute renal colic at the emergency department.
|
Authors |
Year |
Country |
Study design |
No. of patients |
% Male |
Mean age ± SD |
|
Kim et al. [13] |
2018 |
South Korea |
Retrospective, observational |
798 |
68.6 |
48.2 ± 13.3 |
|
Desai et al. [14] |
2018 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
350 |
NR |
NR |
|
Türk and Ün [15]* |
2017 |
Turkey |
Prospective, observational |
516 |
60.5 |
37 ± 20.3 |
|
Shrestha et al. [16]* |
2017 |
Nepal |
Retrospective, observational |
201 |
55.2 |
29 ± 13.5 |
|
Odoemene et al. [17]* |
2017 |
Nigeria |
Prospective, observational |
69 |
76.8 |
40.4 ± 2.9 |
|
Mefford et al. [18] |
2017 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
393 |
69 |
Median 43 (IQR 32-54) |
|
Rapp et al. [19] |
2016 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
613 |
47 |
49 ± 0.6 |
|
Park et al. [20] |
2016 |
South Korea |
Prospective, RCT |
103 |
66 |
45.6 ± 12.55 |
|
Hernandez et al. [21] |
2016 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
536 |
56 |
45.9 ± 16.3 |
|
Fukuhara et al. [22]* |
2016 |
Japan |
Retrospective, observational |
491 |
70.5 |
51.8 ± 15 |
|
Dorfman et al. [23] |
2016 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
339 |
55.5 |
46.8 ± 16.5 |
|
Yan et al. [24] |
2015 |
Canada |
Prospective cohort study |
565 |
62.8 |
46.6 ± 14.4 |
|
Lee et al. [25] |
2015 |
South Korea |
Retrospective, observational |
2,218 |
71 |
43.3 ± 14.2 |
|
Hall et al. [26]* |
2015 |
UK |
Retrospective, observational |
513 |
57.1 |
45 ± 23.3 |
|
Zwank et al. [27] |
2014 |
USA |
Prospective, observational |
93 |
NR |
39 ± NR |
|
Abdel-Gawad et al. [28]* |
2014 |
UAE |
Retrospective, observational |
939 |
87.9 |
37.9 ± 11 |
|
Inci et al. [7] |
2013 |
Turkey |
Retrospective, observational |
83 |
42.2 |
42.1 ± 14.4 |
|
Lallas et al. [29] |
2011 |
USA |
Prospective, observational |
32 |
NR |
NR |
|
Perez et al. [30]* |
2010 |
Spain |
Prospective, multicentre, cross-sectional case-control |
146 |
57.53 |
51.34 ± NR |
|
Xafis et al. [31]* |
2008 |
Switzerland |
Retrospective, observational |
638 |
NR |
44.3 ± 14.6 |
|
Serinken et al. [32]* |
2008 |
Turkey |
Retrospective, observational |
235 |
75.7 |
31.1 ± 7 |
|
Cupisti et al. [33] |
2008 |
Italy |
Retrospective, observational |
696 |
54 |
NR |
|
Matani and Al-Ghazo [34]* |
2007 |
Saudi Arabia / Jordan |
Retrospective, observational |
75 |
61.3 |
42.2 ± NR |
|
Kartal et al. [35]* |
2006 |
Turkey |
Prospective, observational |
227 |
64.8 |
38.4 ± 14 |
|
Kirpalani et al. [36] |
2005 |
Canada |
Retrospective, observational |
299 |
NR |
NR |
|
Gaspari and Horst [37] |
2005 |
USA |
Prospective, observational |
110 |
NR |
NR |
|
Argyropoulos et al. [8] |
2004 |
Greece |
Retrospective, observational |
609 |
63.2 |
49.2 ± 15.9 |
|
Unal et al. [38]* |
2003 |
Turkey |
Prospective, observational |
137 |
55 |
38 ± NR |
|
Tack et al. [39]* |
2003 |
Belgium |
Prospective, observational |
106 |
50 |
45 ± NR |
|
Kobayashi et al. [40] |
2003 |
Japan |
Retrospective, observational |
537 |
78 |
46.6 ± 14 |
|
Eray et al. [41] |
2003 |
Turkey |
Prospective, observational |
65 |
60 |
38.8 ± 13.5 |
|
Lucks et al. [42] |
2002 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
587 |
NR |
NR |
|
Hamm et al. [43] |
2002 |
Germany |
Prospective, observational |
109 |
69.7 |
49 ± NR |
|
Li et al. [44]* |
2001 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
397 |
73 |
47 ± 15 |
|
Hamm et al. [45] |
2001 |
Germany |
Prospective, observational |
125 |
72 |
55 ± 17 |
|
Richards and Christman [46] |
1999 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
185 |
NR |
NR |
|
Bove et al. [47] |
1999 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
195 |
NR |
NR |
|
Ooi et al. [9]* |
1998 |
Singapore |
Prospective, observational |
122 |
93 |
39.7 ± NR |
|
Ghali et al. [48]* |
1998 |
Saudi Arabia |
Prospective, observational |
125 |
80 |
39.2 ± NR |
|
Eskelinen et al. [49] |
1998 |
Finland |
Prospective, observational |
57 |
NR |
NR |
|
Gimondo et al. [50]* |
1996 |
Italy |
Retrospective, observational |
76 |
60.5 |
47 ± NR |
|
Boyd and Gray [51] |
1996 |
UK |
Prospective, observational |
52 |
NR |
NR |
|
Press and Smith [52] |
1995 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
109 |
NR |
NR |
|
Chia et al. [53] |
1995 |
Singapore |
Prospective, observational |
294 |
72.5 |
43.5 ± NR |
|
Elton et al. [54]* |
1993 |
USA |
Retrospective / prospective, observational |
275 |
71.2 |
46.2 ± 15.7 |
|
Stewart et al. [55] |
1990 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
160 |
76.9 |
NR |
|
Freeland [56] |
1987 |
Northern Ireland |
Retrospective, observational |
134 |
NR |
NR |
|
Dunn et al. [57] |
1985 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
76 |
NR |
42.7 ± NR |
|
Bishop [58] |
1980 |
UK |
Prospective, observational |
50 |
NR |
NR |
Abbreviations (alphabetical order): IQR = interquartile range; NR = not reported; RCT = Randomized controlled study; SD = standard deviation; UAE = United Arab Emirates; UK = United Kingdom; USA = United States of America.
Note: *Enrolled also children.
Table 2: Data on microhematuria in patients presenting with suspected acute renal colic at the emergency department.
|
Authors |
Microhematuria test |
Type of hematuria |
Positive microhematuria definition |
No. patients with microhematuria |
Microhematuria prevalence |
|
Kim et al. [13] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 4 or more RBCs/HPF |
750 |
750/798 (94%) |
|
Desai et al. [14] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic or macroscopic |
Positive urinalysis for RBCs or for blood |
245 |
245/350 (70%) |
|
Türk and Ün [15] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
NR |
432 |
432/516 (83.7%) |
|
Shrestha et al. [16] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 3 or more RBCs |
70 |
70/201 (34.8%) |
|
Odoemene et al. [17] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic or macroscopic |
NR |
62 |
62/69 (89.9%) |
|
Mefford et al. [18] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 4 or more RBCs/HPF |
321 |
321/393 (81.7%) |
|
Rapp et al. [19] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic or macroscopic |
Presence of 4 or more RBCs/HPF |
412 |
412/613 (67.2%) |
|
Park et al. [20] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
NR |
90 |
90/103 (87.4%) |
|
Hernandez et al. [21] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Hematuria on urine dipstick |
332 |
332/536 (61.9%) |
|
Fukuhara et al. [22] |
Urinalysis or urine dipstick |
Microscopic or macroscopic |
Occult blood in urine |
352 |
352/491 (71.7%) |
|
Dorfman et al. [23] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 5 or more RBCs/HPF |
254 |
254/339 (74.9%) |
|
Yan et al. [24] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
NR |
451 |
451/565 (79.8%) |
|
Lee et al. [25] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
NR |
1,980 |
1,980/2,218 (89.3%) |
|
Hall et al. [26] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic or macroscopic |
Scores of 1+ to 3+ on urine dipstick or documented frank hematuria |
391 |
391/513 (76.2%) |
|
Zwank et al. [27] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
RBCs present |
66 |
66/93 (71%) |
|
Abdel-Gawad et al. [28] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 4 or more RBCs/HPF |
835 |
835/939 (88.9%) |
|
Inci et al. [7] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 5 or more RBCs/HPF |
46 |
46/83 (55.4%) |
|
Lallas et al. [29] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 4 or more RBCs/HPF |
18 |
18/32 (56.3%) |
|
|
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Trace or scores of 1+ to 4+ on urine dipstick |
21 |
21/32 (65.6%) |
|
Perez et al. [30] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
NR |
132 |
132/146 (90.4%) |
|
Xafis et al. [31] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 5 or more RBCs/HPF |
396 |
396/638 (62.1%) |
|
Serinken et al. [32] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 5 or more RBCs/HPF |
194 |
194/235 (82.6%) |
|
Cupisti et al. [33] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
NR |
592 |
592/696 (85.1%) |
|
Matani and Al-Ghazo [34] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 4 or more RBCs/HPF |
50 |
50/75 (66.7%) |
|
Kartal et al. [35] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 10 or more RBCs/HPF |
146 |
146/227 (64.3%) |
|
Kirpalani et al. [36] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Positive urine dipstick |
228 |
228/299 (76.3%) |
|
Gaspari and Horst [37] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 5 or more RBCs/HPF |
82 |
82/110 (74.5%) |
|
Argyropoulos et al. [8] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Scores of 1+ to 3+ on urine dipstick |
566 |
566/609 (92.9%) |
|
Unal et al. [38] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 4 or more RBCs/HPF |
100 |
100/137 (73%) |
|
Tack et al. [39] |
Urinalysis or Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Presence of 2 or more RBCs/HPF or positive dipstick |
77 |
77/106 (72.6%) |
|
Kobayashi et al. [40] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Scores of 1+ to 3+ on urine dipstick |
382 |
382/537 (71.1%) |
|
|
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 5 or more RBCs/HPF |
350 |
350/537 (65.2%) |
|
Eray et al. [41] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 6 or more RBCs/HPF |
45 |
45/20 (69.2%) |
|
Luchs et al. [42] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 10 or more RBCs/HPF |
492 |
492/587 (83.8%) |
|
Hamm et al. [45] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of more than 20 mg/dl hemoglobin |
66 |
66/109 (60.6%) |
|
Li et al. [44] |
Urinalysis or Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Presence of any number of RBCs/HPF or trace / scores of 1+ to 3+ on urine dipstick |
360 |
360/397 (90.7%) |
|
Hamm et al. [45] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 4 or more RBCs/HPF |
99 |
99/125 (79.2%) |
|
Richards and Christman [46] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 4 or more RBCs/HPF |
156 |
156/185 (84.3%) |
|
Bove et al. [47] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Positive urine dipstick |
130 |
130/180 (72.2%) |
|
|
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 6 or more RBCs/HPF |
128 |
128/195 (65.6%) |
|
|
Urinalysis or Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Presence of 2 or more RBCs/HPF or positive urine dipstick |
153 |
153/195 (78.5%) |
|
Ooi et al. [9] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Scores of 1+ or more on urine dipstick |
114 |
114/122 (93.4%) |
|
|
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 6 or more RBCs/HPF in males or of 10 or more RBCs/HPF in females |
77 |
77/122 (63.1%) |
|
Ghali et al. [48] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 4 or more RBCs/HPF |
81 |
81/125 (64.8%) |
|
Eskelinen et al. [49] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 11 or more RBCs/HPF |
43 |
43/57 (75.4%) |
|
Gimondo et al. [50] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic or macroscopic |
Positive urine dipstick |
56 |
56/76 (73.7%) |
|
Boyd and Gray [51] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Positive urine dipstick |
45 |
45/52 (86.5%) |
|
Press and Smith [52] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 1 or more RBCs/HPF |
78 |
78/109 (71.6%) |
|
Chia et al. [53] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 6 or more RBCs/HPF in males or of 10 or more RBCs/HPF in females |
181 |
181/294 (61.6%) |
|
Elton et al. [54] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 4 or more RBCs/HPF |
194 |
194/275 (70.5%) |
|
Stewart et al. [55] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 3 or more RBCs/HPF |
132 |
132/160 (82.5%) |
|
Freeland [56] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Trace or scores of 1+ to 3+ on urine dipstick |
102 |
102/134 (76.1%) |
|
Dunn et al. [57] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 3 or more RBCs/HPF |
62 |
62/76 (81.6%) |
|
Bishop [58] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Positive urine dipstick |
44 |
44/50 (88%) |
Abbreviations (alphabetical order): NR = not reported; HPF = High power Field; RBC = Red Blood Cell.
Table 3: Data on microhematuria in patients presenting with confirmed urolithiasis at the emergency department.
|
Authors |
Microhematuria test |
No. patients with microhematuria |
Microhematuria prevalence |
Diagnostic test for urolithiasis |
|
Kim et al. [13] |
Urinalysis |
750 |
750/798 (94%) |
Unenhanced MDCT |
|
Desai et al. [14] |
Urinalysis |
231 |
231/282 (81.9%) |
Non-contrast CT |
|
Türk et al. [15] |
Urinalysis |
344 |
344/388 (88.7%) |
Non-contrast complete abdominal CT |
|
Shrestha et al. [16] |
Urinalysis |
27 |
27/61 (44.3%) |
Renal US |
|
Odoemene et al. [17]* |
Urinalysis |
62 |
62/69 (89.9%) |
Abdominal US, IVU, CT |
|
Mefford et al. [18] |
Urinalysis |
321 |
321/393 (81.7%) |
Non-contrast abdominal or pelvic CT |
|
Rapp et al. [19]* |
Urinalysis |
177 |
177/222 (79.7%) |
Non-contrast CT |
|
Fukuhara et al. [22]* |
Urinalysis or urine dipstick |
323 |
323/358 (90.2%) |
Plain abdominal X-ray, helical contrast enhanced or non-contrast CT |
|
Dorfman et al. [23] |
Urinalysis |
254 |
245/339 (74.9%) |
Abdominal CT |
|
Hall et al. [26]* |
Urine dipstick |
193 |
193/233 (82.8) |
Non-enhanced CT |
|
Zwank et al. [27] |
Urinalysis |
52 |
52/62 (83.9) |
CT |
|
Abdel-Gawad et al. [28] |
Urinalysis |
835 |
835/939 (88.9) |
Color doppler or gray-scale US, abdomen X-ray, helical CT |
|
Inci et al. [7] |
Urinalysis |
46 |
46/83 (55.4) |
Unenhanced MDCT |
|
Lallas et al. [29] |
Urinalysis |
18 |
18/32 (56.3) |
US, Abdomen X-ray, IVU, CT |
|
|
Urine dipstick |
21 |
21/32 (65.6) |
|
|
Xafis et al. [31] |
Urinalysis |
341 |
341/507 (67.3) |
Unenhanced MDCT |
|
Kartal et al. [35] |
Urinalysis |
121 |
121/176 (68.8) |
IVU, US, spiral CT, stone passage |
|
Gaspari and Horst [37] |
Urinalysis |
54 |
54/58 (93.1) |
US, CT |
|
Argyropoulos et al. [8] |
Urine dipstick |
539 |
539/564 (95.6) |
Abdomen X-ray, US |
|
Unal et al. [38] |
Urinalysis |
92 |
92/114 (80.7) |
US, excretory urography, non-enhanced helical CT |
|
Tack et al. [39] |
Urinalysis or Urine dipstick |
37 |
37/38 (97.4) |
Excretory urography, non-enhanced helical MDCT |
|
Kobayashi et al. [40] |
Urine dipstick |
346 |
346/452 (76.5) |
Abdomen X-ray, US, CT |
|
|
Urinalysis |
317 |
317/452 (70.1) |
|
|
Eray et al. [41] |
Urinalysis |
37 |
37/54 (68.5) |
Abdomen X-ray, spiral CT, stone passage |
|
Luchs et al. 42[] |
Urinalysis |
492 |
492/587 (83.8) |
CT, stone passage |
|
Hamm et al. [43] |
Urinalysis |
53 |
53/80 (66.3) |
Unenhanced low dose elical CT |
|
Li et al. [44] |
Urinalysis or Urine dipstick |
360 |
360/397 (90.7) |
CT, IVP |
|
Hamm et al. [45] |
Urinalysis |
76 |
76/91 (83.5) |
Helical CT |
|
Richards and Christman [46] |
Urinalysis |
88 |
88/98 (89.8) |
IVU |
|
Bove et al. [47] |
Urine dipstick |
70 |
70/87 (80.5) |
CT |
|
|
Urinalysis |
77 |
77/95 (81.1) |
|
|
|
Urinalysis or Urine dipstick |
82 |
82/95 (86.3) |
|
|
Ooi et al. [9] |
Urine dipstick |
62 |
62/65 (95.4) |
Abdomen X-ray, IVU |
|
|
Urinalysis |
46 |
46/65 (70.8) |
|
|
Ghali et al. [48] |
Urinalysis |
64 |
64/82 (78) |
Abdomen X-ray, IVU, US |
|
Gimondo et al. [50]* |
Urine dipstick |
29 |
29/29 (100) |
US |
|
Boyd and Gray [51] |
Urine dipstick |
29 |
29/29 (100) |
Abdomen X-ray, IVU |
|
Press and Smith [52] |
Urinalysis |
78 |
78/109 (71.6) |
IVU |
|
Stewart et al. [55] |
Urinalysis |
132 |
132/160 (82.5) |
IVP |
|
Freeland [56] |
Urine dipstick |
72 |
72/76 (94.7) |
IVU or stone passage |
|
Dunn et al. [57] |
Urinalysis |
62 |
62/76 (81.6) |
IVU or stone passage |
|
Bishop [58] |
Urine dipstick |
33 |
33/35 (94.3) |
IVU |
Abbreviations (alphabetical order): CT = computed tomography; HFU = High-power field; IVU = Intravenous Urography; MDCT = multidetector CT; NR = not reported; RBC = Red Blood Cell; SD = standard deviation; US = ultrasound
* This study included also patients with gross hematuria
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
- Appendix1.docx
- SupplementalFigure1.tif
Supplemental figure 1 Overall quality assessment of the studies included in the systematic review according to QUADAS-2 tool.
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 2
Posted 08 Jul, 2020
No community comments so far
Review #1 received
Received 08 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 06 Jul, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 06 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 06 Jul, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 06 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 06 Jul, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 08 Jun, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 10 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 31 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 26 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 21 Nov, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 20 Nov, 2019
Editor assigned
On 16 Oct, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 16 Oct, 2019
Editor invited
On 16 Oct, 2019
First submitted
On 15 Oct, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Urology & Nephrology
Learn more about our company.
This preprint is under consideration at BMC Urology. Preprints are preliminary reports that have not undergone peer review. They should not be considered conclusive, used to inform clinical practice, or referenced by the media as validated information.
Learn more about In Review
Research article
Prevalence of microhematuria in renal colic and urolithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bruno Minotti
Kantonsspital Sankt Gallen
Corresponding Author
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4820-9968
Badges
Prescreen
This manuscript passed our Prescreen assessment
Complete author information
Appropriate declaration statements
Potential risks to human health
Prescreen
Peer Review Timeline
CURRENT STATUS: Under Review
Version 2
Posted 08 Jul, 2020
No community comments so far
Review #1 received
Received 08 Jul, 2020
Editor assigned
On 06 Jul, 2020
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 06 Jul, 2020
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 06 Jul, 2020
Submission checks complete
On 06 Jul, 2020
Editor invited
On 06 Jul, 2020
No comments provided
Editorial decision: Major revision
On 08 Jun, 2020
Review #2 received
Received 10 Feb, 2020
Reviewer #2 agreed
On 31 Jan, 2020
Review #1 received
Received 26 Nov, 2019
Reviewer #1 agreed
On 21 Nov, 2019
Reviewers invited
Invitations sent on 20 Nov, 2019
Editor assigned
On 16 Oct, 2019
Submission checks complete
On 16 Oct, 2019
Editor invited
On 16 Oct, 2019
First submitted
On 15 Oct, 2019
Metrics
Comments: 0
PDF Downloads: ...
HTML Views: ...
Subject Areas
Urology & Nephrology
License:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Read Full License
Background This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to investigate the prevalence of microhematuria in patients presenting with suspected acute renal colic and/or confirmed urolithiasis at the emergency department.
Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted to find relevant data on prevalence of microhematuria in patients with suspected acute renal colic and/or confirmed urolithiasis. Data from each study regarding study design, patient characteristics and prevalence of microhematuria were retrieved. A random effect-model was used for the pooled analyses.
Results Forty-nine articles including 15’860 patients were selected through the literature search. The pooled microhematuria prevalence was 77% (95%CI: 73-80%) and 84% (95%CI: 80-87%) for suspected acute renal colic and confirmed urolithiasis, respectively. This proportion was much higher when the dipstick was used as diagnostic test (80% and 90% for acute renal colic and urolithiasis, respectively) compared to the microscopic urinalysis (74% and 78% for acute renal colic and urolithiasis, respectively).
Conclusions This meta-analysis revealed a high prevalence of microhematuria in patients with acute renal colic (77%), including those with confirmed urolithiasis (84%). Intending this prevalence as sensitivity, we reached moderate values, which make microhematuria alone a poor diagnostic test for acute renal colic or urolithiasis. Microhematuria could possibly still important to assess the risk in patients with renal colic.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Renal colic is caused by the presence of stones in the urinary tract and it is characterized by sudden onset of severe loin pain, radiating to the flank, groin, and testes or labia majora [1]. Incidence amounts to 240 per 100’000 persons [2] with a prevalence up to 10%; men are commonly more affected than women with a ratio of 3-2:1 [3]. Lifetime risk is up to 19% in men and 9% in women [4], varying depending on geographic location and increasing constantly over last years [5]. Guidelines for the diagnostic pathway suggest assessing (micro)hematuria, while the gold standard of imaging is unenhanced multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) [1]. As diagnostic tool the STONE Score was developed and validated; this score includes parameters as sex, duration of pain prior to presentation, race, nausea, vomiting and microhematuria [6]. Microhematuria prevalence in suspected renal colic has been studied in several trials, ranging from 55% [7] to 93% [8, 9]. In order to better understand the difference existing in prevalence range, we performed a meta-analysis of studies dealing with microhematuria by suspected acute renal colic and/or confirmed urolithiasis.
This systematic review and meta-analysis conforms to the statement on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses [10].
2.1 Search strategy
A literature search of the electronic PubMed/MEDLINE database and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), without language restriction, was carried out from inception to October 11, 2018. A search algorithm was established using a combination of the following terms: A) renal colic AND urolithiasis (Problem), B) urinalysis (Intervention), C) microhematuria (Outcome). The final search query is reported in Appendix 1. Reference lists of the retrieved articles were also screened for additional studies.
2.2 Eligibility criteria
We included in this systematic review and meta-analysis studies which filled the following inclusion criteria: a) original article published in peer-reviewed journal; b) studies including adults only; c) patients presenting with acute renal colic at the emergency department; d) studies reporting data on microhematuria.
Exclusion criteria were: a) articles not within the field of interest of this review; b) review articles, letters or editorials; c) case reports or case series (less than 10 patients included); d) articles with possible patient data overlap.
2.3 Study selection
Titles and abstracts of the retrieved studies were independently reviewed by two researchers (MP, GT), applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria mentioned above. Articles were rejected if they were clearly ineligible. The full texts of the potentially eligible articles were reviewed independently by the same researchers to confirm or exclude their eligibility for inclusion. Disagreements were resolved in a consensus meeting.
2.4 Data extraction
For each included study, one author (MP) manually extracted data relevant to the review aims using a customized form. Information regarding basic study data (authors, year of publication, country of origin, type of study), patient characteristics (number of patients, mean age, gender), methods (microhematuria test, microhematuria definition) and outcomes (number of patients with microhematuria, microhematuria prevalence) were retrieved. The number of patients with microhematuria and microhematuria prevalence were also extracted for patients with confirmed urolithiasis, where available. Diagnostic methods for detection of stones were also retrieved. One other author (GT) independently checked all extracted data.
2.5 Outcome measures
The primary outcome was the percentage of microhematuria among patients presenting with suspected acute renal colic at the emergency department. The secondary outcome was the percentage of microhematuria among patients presenting with acute renal colic and confirmed urolithiasis at the emergency department.
2.6 Quality assessment
The overall quality of the studies included in the systematic review was critically appraised based on the revised “Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies” tool (QUADAS-2). This tool comprises four domains: patient selection, index test, reference standard, and flow and timing. Each domain was assessed in terms of risk of bias, and the first three domains were also assessed in terms of concerns regarding applicability. Two authors have performed the risk of bias assessment (GT and MP) reaching a consensus.
2.7 Statistical analysis
Microhematuria prevalence was defined as the ratio between the number of patients with suspected acute renal colic with microhematuria detected by urinalysis or dipstick and the total number of patients with suspected acute renal colic who underwent the analysis. This proportion was calculated also for patients presenting with acute renal colic and confirmed urolithiasis.
Pooled analyses of the proportion of microhematuria detected by urinalysis or dipstick were performed using data retrieved from the selected studies. When microhematuria was assessed using both urinalysis and dipstick, the test with the better outcome was chosen. Subgroup analyses taking into account the microhematuria test were planned.
A random-effects model was used for statistical pooling of the data, taking into account the heterogeneity between studies. The different weight of each study in the pooled analysis was related to the different sample size. Pooled data were presented with their respective 95% confidence interval (95%CI) values, and data were displayed using plots.
Heterogeneity was estimated by using the I-square index (I2), which describes the percentage of variation across studies that is due to heterogeneity rather than chance [11] and considered significant if I-square test was higher than 50%.
Publication bias was assessed through the Egger’s test [12].
Statistical analyses were performed using the StatsDirect software version 3 (StatsDirect Ltd., Cambridge, UK).
3.1 Literature search
The literature search from PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL databases yielded a total of 1,377 records. After reviewing titles and abstracts, 77 were selected as potentially eligible articles. The full text was retrieved for all. Following eligibility’s assessment, 31 articles did not meet the inclusion criteria and were excluded from the systematic review. Within the selected articles, screening of the reference lists allowed to add 3 additional records. Finally, 49 studies [7-9, 13-58] including 15’860 patients were identified as potentially relevant and were selected for the systematic review and meta-analysis. All of the included studies except two [30, 50] were published in English. These studies covered the period from inception to October 11, 2018. Search results and articles’ selection are displayed in a PRISMA flow chart (Figure 1).
3.2 Selected studies
The characteristics of selected studies are reported in Table 1. The studies were conducted in different countries worldwide (Europe, North America, Asia, Africa). The sample size of the included trials ranged from 32 to 2,218 adults presenting to the emergency department or urology clinic with acute renal colic. Most of the studies were observational with a prospective (19) or retrospective (29) or mixed (1) design.
Microhematuria was tested by urinalysis in 32 studies, urine dipstick in 10 and both methods in 7. Definition of microhematuria was different among the included studies. Six studies included also patients presenting with macroscopic hematuria [14, 17, 19, 22, 26, 50]. Details on the microhematuria test are reported in Table 2.
3.3 Quality assessment
Overall quality assessment of the studies included in the systematic review according to QUADAS-2 tool is reported in Supplemental Figure 1.
3.4 Microhematuria prevalence and suspected acute renal colic
Primary outcome characteristics on microhematuria prevalence in patients with suspected acute renal colic are summarized in Table 2 and Figure 2.
Prevalence of microhematuria ranged from 35% to 94%, with a pooled estimate of 77% (95%CI: 73-80%) (Figure 2). The heterogeneity among the included studies was significant (I2 = 96%). A publication bias was detected by Egger’s test (p < 0.0001).
Performing sub-group analyses taking into account different microhematuria tests, the pooled prevalence of microhematuria using urinalysis or urine dipstick was 74% (95%CI: 69-78%) and 80% (95%CI: 74-86%) respectively, without significant difference between two groups.
3.5 Microhematuria prevalence and confirmed urolithiasis
Secondary outcomes regarding main findings on microhematuria prevalence in patients with acute renal colic and confirmed urolithiasis are summarized in Table 3 and Figure 3.
Prevalence of microhematuria ranged from 44% to 100%, with a pooled estimate of 84% (95%CI: 80-87%) (Figure 3). Heterogeneity among the included studies was significant (I2 = 93%). A publication bias was detected by Egger’s test (p = 0.0008).
Performing sub-group analyses taking into account different microhematuria tests, the pooled prevalence of microhematuria using urinalysis or urine dipstick was 78% (95%CI: 74-82%) and 90% (95%CI: 83-95%), respectively.
Many studies have evaluated the prevalence of microhematuria in patients with suspected acute renal colic (Table 1); this meta-analysis pooled data reported in the published studies to derive a more precise assessment. Overall, this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed a high prevalence of microhematuria in patients with acute renal colic (77%), including those with confirmed urolithiasis (84%). However, intending this prevalence as sensitivity, we reached moderate values, which make microhematuria alone a poor diagnostic test for acute renal colic, respectively for urolithiasis. In our meta-analysis heterogeneity was high; indeed, we found a poor definition regarding urine analysis across studies (see positive microhematuria definition in Table 2), with different cells count on microscopy, but also with various dipstick brands. Argyropoulos et al. [8] carried out a microscopic urinalysis when the dipstick was in doubt or with blood traces; microhematuria was confirmed in all of these cases. Thus, the authors concluded that urinary dipstick test is not inferior to microscopy. Bataille et al. [59] compared the sensitivity of urinary dipstick with microscopy and flow cytometry on in vitro contaminated human urine with human blood of volunteers at different concentrations. Urinary dipstick reached the best sensitivity, probably due to the ability to detect red blood cells after lysis, and was suggested as preferred test for screening of hematuria. Same results were previously reported by Kobayashi et al. [40] and Press et al. [52]. De facto we detected a trend toward a higher pooled prevalence of microhematuria by using urine dipstick compared to microscopic urinalysis. Some studies analyzed the characteristics of patients with renal colic and negative microhematuria, the most without correlation between size, location or composition of the stones, or grade of the obstruction [44, 52, 55, 57]. Kobayashi et al. [40] found a relation between hematuria and pain onset, with the highest incidence of negative hematuria on day 3 and 4. Kim et al. [13] found negative microhematuria in patients with lower stones or elevated serum blood urea nitrogen (BUN). Mefford et al. [18] showed an increased prevalence of hydronephrosis in patients with urolithiasis and negative microhematuria. As hydronephrosis is easy to screen with ultrasonography, Daniel et al. [60] developed the STONE PLUS Score with addition of point-of-care ultrasound of the kidney to the original STONE Score. Presence of hydronephrosis improved the specificity up to 98% and helped to identify patients requiring urological intervention, without remarkably increasing risk stratification.
Considering the moderate sensitivity of microhematuria in patients with renal colic, Xafis et al. [31] suggested to perform a MDCT without urinalysis as a prerequisite. This approach seems to show the best diagnostic accuracy; however, it would increase the number of MDCT with more costs and radiation exposure. Therefore, the focus should be placed in complicated urolithiasis (e.g., obstructive pyelonephritis) or dangerous alternative diagnosis. Rucker et al. [61] reported numerous diseases mimicking urolithiasis. Moore et al. [6] found a lower likelihood of a dangerous alternative diagnosis (< 2%) by using high STONE scores and suggested for this group the possibility to initially avoid compute tomography because till 90% of stones < 7 mm will pass through spontaneously [62]. With the same approach the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) suggests in the Choosing Wisely group to avoid ordering computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis in young except healthy emergency department patients (age <50) with known histories of kidney stones, or ureterolithiasis, presenting with symptoms consistent with uncomplicated renal colic [63]. In fact, taking all studies together, the prevalence of patients with renal colic having effectively urolithiasis was 66% (median, IQR 52-76), which means a higher pre-test probability in the studied population and so a good discerning capacity of the treating physicians. Anyway, alternative diagnosis mimicking renal colic have to be taken into account. Commons diagnosis are pyelonephritis, appendicitis, diverticulitis, adnexal cysts/tumor, cholecystitis, lumbago/sciatica. Rarer pneumonia, lymphoma or aortic dissection/aneurysm. However CT scan negative rate reach till 31% [42] and Zwank et al. [27] could show that CT scan didn't change management when providers did not expect it would. Finally, alternative diagnosis mimicking renal colic could be found by ultrasonography at least in one study with the same accuracy as MDCT [64].
Some limitations and biases of our meta-analysis should be taken into account. We have no registered a protocol of the systematic review on a database such as PROSPERO. We included some retrospective studies because of the good data quality. Heterogeneity among studies may represent a potential source of bias in a meta-analysis. This heterogeneity is likely to arise through baseline differences among patients in the included studies (Table 1), or diversity in methodological aspects between different studies (Table 2). Unfortunately, we detected a significant heterogeneity in our meta-analysis. We believe that, beyond the various microhematuria tests (urinalysis vs dipstick), the most important source of heterogeneity could be the different definitions of microhematuria (Table 2). Finally, we found presence of publication bias.
In conclusion, microhematuria searched with urine dipstick showed higher diagnostic sensitivity and should be used in this setting as a “gold standard”; it is needed to calculate the STONE score, which can help to identify patients with decreased likelihood of a differential diagnosis, reducing costs and radiation exposure of MDCT. Finally, the concomitant use of ultrasound could increase the specificity till 98% by hydronephrosis, identify patients requiring urological intervention and help to find alternative diagnosis in each risk group. Especially for searching differential diagnosis with ultrasound in patients with suspected renal colic, further studies should be undertaken. Larger prospective multicenter validation study of the STONE score could provide more definitive evidence.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable
Consent for publication
Not applicable
Availability of data and materials
Not applicable
Competing interests
No competing interests to declare
Funding
None
Authors’ contribution
Concept: BM, AS. Literature search: MP, GT. Statistical analysis: MP, GT. Data interpretation: MP, GT, BM, AS. Manuscript writing: MP, GT, BM, AS. Critical review and final approval: all authors.
Acknowledgments
This work was carried out in collaboration with the Clinical Trial Unit of Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale (Ticino, Switzerland).
[1] Bultitude M, Rees J. Management of renal colic. Bmj. 2012;345:e5499.
[2] Tasian GE, Ross ME, Song L, Sas DJ, Keren R, Denburg MR, et al. Annual Incidence of Nephrolithiasis among Children and Adults in South Carolina from 1997 to 2012. Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN. 2016;11:488-96.
[3] Scales CD, Jr., Smith AC, Hanley JM, Saigal CS. Prevalence of kidney stones in the United States. European urology. 2012;62:160-5.
[4] Curhan G. 47 - Nephrolithiasis. In: Gilbert SJ, Weiner DE, editors. National Kidney Foundation Primer on Kidney Diseases (Sixth Edition). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders; 2014. p. 405-11.
[5] Romero V, Akpinar H, Assimos DG. Kidney stones: a global picture of prevalence, incidence, and associated risk factors. Reviews in urology. 2010;12:e86-96.
[6] Moore CL, Bomann S, Daniels B, Luty S, Molinaro A, Singh D, et al. Derivation and validation of a clinical prediction rule for uncomplicated ureteral stone--the STONE score: retrospective and prospective observational cohort studies. Bmj. 2014;348:g2191.
[7] Inci MF, Ozkan F, Bozkurt S, Sucakli MH, Altunoluk B, Okumus M. Correlation of volume, position of stone, and hydronephrosis with microhematuria in patients with solitary urolithiasis. Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research. 2013;19:295-9.
[8] Argyropoulos A, Farmakis A, Doumas K, Lykourinas M. The presence of microscopic hematuria detected by urine dipstick test in the evaluation of patients with renal colic. Urological research. 2004;32:294-7.
[9] Ooi SB, Kour NW, Mahadev A. Haematuria in the diagnosis of urinary calculi. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore. 1998;27:210-4.
[10] Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.
[11] Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in medicine. 2002;21:1539-58.
[12] Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA. A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Statistics in medicine. 2006;25:3443-57.
[13] Kim TH, Oh SH, Park KN, Kim HJ, Youn CS, Kim SH, et al. Factors associated with absent microhematuria in symptomatic urinary stone patients. The American journal of emergency medicine. 2018.
[14] Desai V, Cox M, Deshmukh S, Roth CG. Contrast-enhanced or noncontrast CT for renal colic: utilizing urinalysis and patient history of urolithiasis to decide. Emergency radiology. 2018;25:455-60.
[15] Turk H, Un S. Predictive factors for stone disease in patients with renal colic. Archivio italiano di urologia, andrologia : organo ufficiale [di] Societa italiana di ecografia urologica e nefrologica. 2017;89:143-5.
[16] Shrestha R, Bista Y, Khan A. Current Diagnostic Approach and Initial Treatment Patterns for Renal Colic in Emergency Department. Journal of Nepal Health Research Council. 2017;15:38-43.
[17] Odoemene CA, Okere P, Ugonabo MC. Ureterolithiasis: Management in an environment with limited facilities. Nigerian journal of clinical practice. 2017;20:622-8.
[18] Mefford JM, Tungate RM, Amini L, Suh D, Anderson CL, Rudkin SE, et al. A Comparison of Urolithiasis in the Presence and Absence of Microscopic Hematuria in the Emergency Department. The western journal of emergency medicine. 2017;18:775-9.
[19] Rapp DE, Wood NL, Bassignani M, Gergoudis L, Caulkins S, Kramolowsky EV. Clinical variables and stone detection in patients with flank pain. The Canadian journal of urology. 2016;23:8441-5.
[20] Park YH, Jung RB, Lee YG, Hong CK, Ahn JH, Shin TY, et al. Does the use of bedside ultrasonography reduce emergency department length of stay for patients with renal colic?: a pilot study. Clinical and experimental emergency medicine. 2016;3:197-203.
[21] Hernandez N, Song Y, Noble VE, Eisner BH. Predicting ureteral stones in emergency department patients with flank pain: an external validation of the STONE score. World journal of urology. 2016;34:1443-6.
[22] Fukuhara H, Ichiyanagi O, Kakizaki H, Naito S, Tsuchiya N. Clinical relevance of seasonal changes in the prevalence of ureterolithiasis in the diagnosis of renal colic. Urolithiasis. 2016;44:529-37.
[23] Dorfman M, Chan SB, Hayek K, Hill C. Pyuria and Urine Cultures in Patients with Acute Renal Colic. The Journal of emergency medicine. 2016;51:358-64.
[24] Yan JW, McLeod SL, Edmonds ML, Sedran RJ, Theakston KD. Risk Factors Associated with Urologic Intervention in Emergency Department Patients with Suspected Renal Colic. The Journal of emergency medicine. 2015;49:130-5.
[25] Lee DH, Chang IH, Kim JW, Chi BH, Park SB. Usefulness of Nonenhanced Computed Tomography for Diagnosing Urolithiasis without Pyuria in the Emergency Department. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:810971.
[26] Hall TC, Stephenson JA, Rangaraj A, Mulcahy K, Rajesh A. Imaging protocol for suspected ureteric calculi in patients presenting to the emergency department. Clinical radiology. 2015;70:243-7.
[27] Zwank MD, Ho BM, Gresback D, Stuck LH, Salzman JG, Woster WR. Does computed tomographic scan affect diagnosis and management of patients with suspected renal colic? The American journal of emergency medicine. 2014;32:367-70.
[28] Abdel-Gawad M, Kadasne R, Anjikar C, Elsobky E. Value of Color Doppler ultrasound, kub and urinalysis in diagnosis of renal colic due to ureteral stones. International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. 2014;40:513-9.
[29] Lallas CD, Liu XS, Chiura AN, Das AK, Bagley DH. Urolithiasis location and size and the association with microhematuria and stone-related symptoms. Journal of endourology. 2011;25:1909-13.
[30] Perez JA, Palmes Mde L, Ferrer JF, Urdangarain OO, Nunez AB. Renal colic at emergency departments. Epidemiologic, diagnostic and etiopathogenic study. Archivos espanoles de urologia. 2010;63:173-87.
[31] Xafis K, Thalmann G, Benneker LM, Stoupis C, Buggy DJ, Zimmermann H, et al. Forget the blood, not the stone! Microhaematuria in acute urolithiasis and the role of early CT scanning. Emergency medicine journal : EMJ. 2008;25:640-4.
[32] Serinken M, Karcioglu O, Turkcuer I, Ozkan HI, Keysan MK, Bukiran A. Analysis of clinical and demographic characteristics of patients presenting with renal colic in the emergency department. BMC research notes. 2008;1:79.
[33] Cupisti A, Pasquali E, Lusso S, Carlino F, Orsitto E, Melandri R. Renal colic in Pisa emergency department: epidemiology, diagnostics and treatment patterns. Internal and Emergency Medicine. 2008;3:241-4.
[34] Matani YS, Al-Ghazo MA. Role of helical nonenhanced computed tomography in the evaluation of acute flank pain. Asian journal of surgery. 2007;30:45-51.
[35] Kartal M, Eray O, Erdogru T, Yilmaz S. Prospective validation of a current algorithm including bedside US performed by emergency physicians for patients with acute flank pain suspected for renal colic. Emergency medicine journal : EMJ. 2006;23:341-4.
[36] Kirpalani A, Khalili K, Lee S, Haider MA. Renal colic: comparison of use and outcomes of unenhanced helical CT for emergency investigation in 1998 and 2002. Radiology. 2005;236:554-8.
[37] Gaspari RJ, Horst K. Emergency ultrasound and urinalysis in the evaluation of flank pain. Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. 2005;12:1180-4.
[38] Unal D, Yeni E, Karaoglanoglu M, Verit A, Karatas OF. Can conventional examinations contribute to the diagnostic power of unenhanced helical computed tomography in urolithiasis? Urologia internationalis. 2003;70:31-5.
[39] Tack D, Sourtzis S, Delpierre I, de Maertelaer V, Gevenois PA. Low-dose unenhanced multidetector CT of patients with suspected renal colic. AJR American journal of roentgenology. 2003;180:305-11.
[40] Kobayashi T, Nishizawa K, Mitsumori K, Ogura K. Impact of date of onset on the absence of hematuria in patients with acute renal colic. The Journal of urology. 2003;170:1093-6.
[41] Eray O, Cubuk MS, Oktay C, Yilmaz S, Cete Y, Ersoy FF. The efficacy of urinalysis, plain films, and spiral CT in ED patients with suspected renal colic. The American journal of emergency medicine. 2003;21:152-4.
[42] Luchs JS, Katz DS, Lane MJ, Mellinger BC, Lumerman JH, Stillman CA, et al. Utility of hematuria testing in patients with suspected renal colic: correlation with unenhanced helical CT results. Urology. 2002;59:839-42.
[43] Hamm M, Knopfle E, Wartenberg S, Wawroschek F, Weckermann D, Harzmann R. Low dose unenhanced helical computerized tomography for the evaluation of acute flank pain. The Journal of urology. 2002;167:1687-91.
[44] Li J, Kennedy D, Levine M, Kumar A, Mullen J. Absent hematuria and expensive computerized tomography: case characteristics of emergency urolithiasis. The Journal of urology. 2001;165:782-4.
[45] Hamm M, Wawroschek F, Weckermann D, Knopfle E, Hackel T, Hauser H, et al. Unenhanced helical computed tomography in the evaluation of acute flank pain. European urology. 2001;39:460-5.
[46] Richards JR, Christman CA. Intravenous urography in the emergency department: when do we need it? European journal of emergency medicine : official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine. 1999;6:129-33.
[47] Bove P, Kaplan D, Dalrymple N, Rosenfield AT, Verga M, Anderson K, et al. Reexamining the value of hematuria testing in patients with acute flank pain. The Journal of urology. 1999;162:685-7.
[48] Ghali AM, Elmalik EM, Ibrahim AI, Abdulhameed E, el Tahir MI. Cost-effective emergency diagnosis plan for urinary stone patients presenting with ureteric colic. European urology. 1998;33:529-37.
[49] Eskelinen M, Ikonen J, Lipponen P. Usefulness of history-taking, physical examination and diagnostic scoring in acute renal colic. European urology. 1998;34:467-73.
[50] Gimondo P, Mastropasqua G, Cremona A, Mucciaccio C. [Early and systematic use of ultrasonography in emergency patients with renal colic: analysis of the actual diagnostic efficacy]. La Radiologia medica. 1996;92:421-4.
[51] Boyd R, Gray AJ. Role of the plain radiograph and urinalysis in acute ureteric colic. Journal of accident & emergency medicine. 1996;13:390-1.
[52] Press SM, Smith AD. Incidence of negative hematuria in patients with acute urinary lithiasis presenting to the emergency room with flank pain. Urology. 1995;45:753-7.
[53] Chia SJ, Lau W, Tan PK, Consigliere D, Li MK, Low CH. Ureteric colic: value of initial investigations and the outcome. Annals of the Academy of Medicine, Singapore. 1995;24:366-9.
[54] Elton TJ, Roth CS, Berquist TH, Silverstein MD. A clinical prediction rule for the diagnosis of ureteral calculi in emergency departments. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8:57-62.
[55] Stewart DP, Kowalski R, Wong P, Krome R. Microscopic hematuria and calculus-related ureteral obstruction. The Journal of emergency medicine. 1990;8:693-5.
[56] Freeland P. No haematuria--no IVU. Irish journal of medical science. 1987;156:270-1.
[57] Dunn PM, Keller RT, Jones SR. The absence of hematuria in patients with symptomatic urinary tract stones. The Western journal of medicine. 1985;142:717-9.
[58] Bishop NL. The influence of emergency urography and haematuria on the diagnosis of ureteric colic. Clinical radiology. 1980;31:605-10.
[59] Bataille A, Wetzstein M, Hertig A, Vimont S, Rondeau E, Galichon P. Evidence of dipstick superiority over urine microscopy analysis for detection of hematuria. BMC research notes. 2016;9:435.
[60] Daniels B, Gross CP, Molinaro A, Singh D, Luty S, Jessey R, et al. STONE PLUS: Evaluation of Emergency Department Patients With Suspected Renal Colic, Using a Clinical Prediction Tool Combined With Point-of-Care Limited Ultrasonography. Annals of emergency medicine. 2016;67:439-48.
[61] Rucker CM, Menias CO, Bhalla S. Mimics of renal colic: alternative diagnoses at unenhanced helical CT. Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc. 2004;24 Suppl 1:S11-28; discussion S-33.
[62] Tao RZ, Qin ZQ, Liu FD, Lv JL. Efficacy and Safety of Tamsulosin in the Medical Expulsion Therapy for Distal Ureteral Calculi: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials. Urol J. 2019;16:224-31.
[63] Ten Things Physicians and Patients Should Question American College of Emergency Physicians 2013-2014.
[64] Catalano O, Nunziata A, Sandomenico F, Siani A. Acute flank pain: comparison of unenhanced helical CT and ultrasonography in detecting causes other than ureterolithiasis. Emergency radiology. 2002;9:146-54.
Table 1: Basic study and patient characteristics. Patients presenting with acute renal colic at the emergency department.
|
Authors |
Year |
Country |
Study design |
No. of patients |
% Male |
Mean age ± SD |
|
Kim et al. [13] |
2018 |
South Korea |
Retrospective, observational |
798 |
68.6 |
48.2 ± 13.3 |
|
Desai et al. [14] |
2018 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
350 |
NR |
NR |
|
Türk and Ün [15]* |
2017 |
Turkey |
Prospective, observational |
516 |
60.5 |
37 ± 20.3 |
|
Shrestha et al. [16]* |
2017 |
Nepal |
Retrospective, observational |
201 |
55.2 |
29 ± 13.5 |
|
Odoemene et al. [17]* |
2017 |
Nigeria |
Prospective, observational |
69 |
76.8 |
40.4 ± 2.9 |
|
Mefford et al. [18] |
2017 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
393 |
69 |
Median 43 (IQR 32-54) |
|
Rapp et al. [19] |
2016 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
613 |
47 |
49 ± 0.6 |
|
Park et al. [20] |
2016 |
South Korea |
Prospective, RCT |
103 |
66 |
45.6 ± 12.55 |
|
Hernandez et al. [21] |
2016 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
536 |
56 |
45.9 ± 16.3 |
|
Fukuhara et al. [22]* |
2016 |
Japan |
Retrospective, observational |
491 |
70.5 |
51.8 ± 15 |
|
Dorfman et al. [23] |
2016 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
339 |
55.5 |
46.8 ± 16.5 |
|
Yan et al. [24] |
2015 |
Canada |
Prospective cohort study |
565 |
62.8 |
46.6 ± 14.4 |
|
Lee et al. [25] |
2015 |
South Korea |
Retrospective, observational |
2,218 |
71 |
43.3 ± 14.2 |
|
Hall et al. [26]* |
2015 |
UK |
Retrospective, observational |
513 |
57.1 |
45 ± 23.3 |
|
Zwank et al. [27] |
2014 |
USA |
Prospective, observational |
93 |
NR |
39 ± NR |
|
Abdel-Gawad et al. [28]* |
2014 |
UAE |
Retrospective, observational |
939 |
87.9 |
37.9 ± 11 |
|
Inci et al. [7] |
2013 |
Turkey |
Retrospective, observational |
83 |
42.2 |
42.1 ± 14.4 |
|
Lallas et al. [29] |
2011 |
USA |
Prospective, observational |
32 |
NR |
NR |
|
Perez et al. [30]* |
2010 |
Spain |
Prospective, multicentre, cross-sectional case-control |
146 |
57.53 |
51.34 ± NR |
|
Xafis et al. [31]* |
2008 |
Switzerland |
Retrospective, observational |
638 |
NR |
44.3 ± 14.6 |
|
Serinken et al. [32]* |
2008 |
Turkey |
Retrospective, observational |
235 |
75.7 |
31.1 ± 7 |
|
Cupisti et al. [33] |
2008 |
Italy |
Retrospective, observational |
696 |
54 |
NR |
|
Matani and Al-Ghazo [34]* |
2007 |
Saudi Arabia / Jordan |
Retrospective, observational |
75 |
61.3 |
42.2 ± NR |
|
Kartal et al. [35]* |
2006 |
Turkey |
Prospective, observational |
227 |
64.8 |
38.4 ± 14 |
|
Kirpalani et al. [36] |
2005 |
Canada |
Retrospective, observational |
299 |
NR |
NR |
|
Gaspari and Horst [37] |
2005 |
USA |
Prospective, observational |
110 |
NR |
NR |
|
Argyropoulos et al. [8] |
2004 |
Greece |
Retrospective, observational |
609 |
63.2 |
49.2 ± 15.9 |
|
Unal et al. [38]* |
2003 |
Turkey |
Prospective, observational |
137 |
55 |
38 ± NR |
|
Tack et al. [39]* |
2003 |
Belgium |
Prospective, observational |
106 |
50 |
45 ± NR |
|
Kobayashi et al. [40] |
2003 |
Japan |
Retrospective, observational |
537 |
78 |
46.6 ± 14 |
|
Eray et al. [41] |
2003 |
Turkey |
Prospective, observational |
65 |
60 |
38.8 ± 13.5 |
|
Lucks et al. [42] |
2002 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
587 |
NR |
NR |
|
Hamm et al. [43] |
2002 |
Germany |
Prospective, observational |
109 |
69.7 |
49 ± NR |
|
Li et al. [44]* |
2001 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
397 |
73 |
47 ± 15 |
|
Hamm et al. [45] |
2001 |
Germany |
Prospective, observational |
125 |
72 |
55 ± 17 |
|
Richards and Christman [46] |
1999 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
185 |
NR |
NR |
|
Bove et al. [47] |
1999 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
195 |
NR |
NR |
|
Ooi et al. [9]* |
1998 |
Singapore |
Prospective, observational |
122 |
93 |
39.7 ± NR |
|
Ghali et al. [48]* |
1998 |
Saudi Arabia |
Prospective, observational |
125 |
80 |
39.2 ± NR |
|
Eskelinen et al. [49] |
1998 |
Finland |
Prospective, observational |
57 |
NR |
NR |
|
Gimondo et al. [50]* |
1996 |
Italy |
Retrospective, observational |
76 |
60.5 |
47 ± NR |
|
Boyd and Gray [51] |
1996 |
UK |
Prospective, observational |
52 |
NR |
NR |
|
Press and Smith [52] |
1995 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
109 |
NR |
NR |
|
Chia et al. [53] |
1995 |
Singapore |
Prospective, observational |
294 |
72.5 |
43.5 ± NR |
|
Elton et al. [54]* |
1993 |
USA |
Retrospective / prospective, observational |
275 |
71.2 |
46.2 ± 15.7 |
|
Stewart et al. [55] |
1990 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
160 |
76.9 |
NR |
|
Freeland [56] |
1987 |
Northern Ireland |
Retrospective, observational |
134 |
NR |
NR |
|
Dunn et al. [57] |
1985 |
USA |
Retrospective, observational |
76 |
NR |
42.7 ± NR |
|
Bishop [58] |
1980 |
UK |
Prospective, observational |
50 |
NR |
NR |
Abbreviations (alphabetical order): IQR = interquartile range; NR = not reported; RCT = Randomized controlled study; SD = standard deviation; UAE = United Arab Emirates; UK = United Kingdom; USA = United States of America.
Note: *Enrolled also children.
Table 2: Data on microhematuria in patients presenting with suspected acute renal colic at the emergency department.
|
Authors |
Microhematuria test |
Type of hematuria |
Positive microhematuria definition |
No. patients with microhematuria |
Microhematuria prevalence |
|
Kim et al. [13] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 4 or more RBCs/HPF |
750 |
750/798 (94%) |
|
Desai et al. [14] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic or macroscopic |
Positive urinalysis for RBCs or for blood |
245 |
245/350 (70%) |
|
Türk and Ün [15] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
NR |
432 |
432/516 (83.7%) |
|
Shrestha et al. [16] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 3 or more RBCs |
70 |
70/201 (34.8%) |
|
Odoemene et al. [17] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic or macroscopic |
NR |
62 |
62/69 (89.9%) |
|
Mefford et al. [18] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 4 or more RBCs/HPF |
321 |
321/393 (81.7%) |
|
Rapp et al. [19] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic or macroscopic |
Presence of 4 or more RBCs/HPF |
412 |
412/613 (67.2%) |
|
Park et al. [20] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
NR |
90 |
90/103 (87.4%) |
|
Hernandez et al. [21] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Hematuria on urine dipstick |
332 |
332/536 (61.9%) |
|
Fukuhara et al. [22] |
Urinalysis or urine dipstick |
Microscopic or macroscopic |
Occult blood in urine |
352 |
352/491 (71.7%) |
|
Dorfman et al. [23] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 5 or more RBCs/HPF |
254 |
254/339 (74.9%) |
|
Yan et al. [24] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
NR |
451 |
451/565 (79.8%) |
|
Lee et al. [25] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
NR |
1,980 |
1,980/2,218 (89.3%) |
|
Hall et al. [26] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic or macroscopic |
Scores of 1+ to 3+ on urine dipstick or documented frank hematuria |
391 |
391/513 (76.2%) |
|
Zwank et al. [27] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
RBCs present |
66 |
66/93 (71%) |
|
Abdel-Gawad et al. [28] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 4 or more RBCs/HPF |
835 |
835/939 (88.9%) |
|
Inci et al. [7] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 5 or more RBCs/HPF |
46 |
46/83 (55.4%) |
|
Lallas et al. [29] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 4 or more RBCs/HPF |
18 |
18/32 (56.3%) |
|
|
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Trace or scores of 1+ to 4+ on urine dipstick |
21 |
21/32 (65.6%) |
|
Perez et al. [30] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
NR |
132 |
132/146 (90.4%) |
|
Xafis et al. [31] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 5 or more RBCs/HPF |
396 |
396/638 (62.1%) |
|
Serinken et al. [32] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 5 or more RBCs/HPF |
194 |
194/235 (82.6%) |
|
Cupisti et al. [33] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
NR |
592 |
592/696 (85.1%) |
|
Matani and Al-Ghazo [34] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 4 or more RBCs/HPF |
50 |
50/75 (66.7%) |
|
Kartal et al. [35] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 10 or more RBCs/HPF |
146 |
146/227 (64.3%) |
|
Kirpalani et al. [36] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Positive urine dipstick |
228 |
228/299 (76.3%) |
|
Gaspari and Horst [37] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 5 or more RBCs/HPF |
82 |
82/110 (74.5%) |
|
Argyropoulos et al. [8] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Scores of 1+ to 3+ on urine dipstick |
566 |
566/609 (92.9%) |
|
Unal et al. [38] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 4 or more RBCs/HPF |
100 |
100/137 (73%) |
|
Tack et al. [39] |
Urinalysis or Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Presence of 2 or more RBCs/HPF or positive dipstick |
77 |
77/106 (72.6%) |
|
Kobayashi et al. [40] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Scores of 1+ to 3+ on urine dipstick |
382 |
382/537 (71.1%) |
|
|
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 5 or more RBCs/HPF |
350 |
350/537 (65.2%) |
|
Eray et al. [41] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 6 or more RBCs/HPF |
45 |
45/20 (69.2%) |
|
Luchs et al. [42] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 10 or more RBCs/HPF |
492 |
492/587 (83.8%) |
|
Hamm et al. [45] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of more than 20 mg/dl hemoglobin |
66 |
66/109 (60.6%) |
|
Li et al. [44] |
Urinalysis or Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Presence of any number of RBCs/HPF or trace / scores of 1+ to 3+ on urine dipstick |
360 |
360/397 (90.7%) |
|
Hamm et al. [45] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 4 or more RBCs/HPF |
99 |
99/125 (79.2%) |
|
Richards and Christman [46] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 4 or more RBCs/HPF |
156 |
156/185 (84.3%) |
|
Bove et al. [47] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Positive urine dipstick |
130 |
130/180 (72.2%) |
|
|
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 6 or more RBCs/HPF |
128 |
128/195 (65.6%) |
|
|
Urinalysis or Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Presence of 2 or more RBCs/HPF or positive urine dipstick |
153 |
153/195 (78.5%) |
|
Ooi et al. [9] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Scores of 1+ or more on urine dipstick |
114 |
114/122 (93.4%) |
|
|
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 6 or more RBCs/HPF in males or of 10 or more RBCs/HPF in females |
77 |
77/122 (63.1%) |
|
Ghali et al. [48] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 4 or more RBCs/HPF |
81 |
81/125 (64.8%) |
|
Eskelinen et al. [49] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 11 or more RBCs/HPF |
43 |
43/57 (75.4%) |
|
Gimondo et al. [50] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic or macroscopic |
Positive urine dipstick |
56 |
56/76 (73.7%) |
|
Boyd and Gray [51] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Positive urine dipstick |
45 |
45/52 (86.5%) |
|
Press and Smith [52] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 1 or more RBCs/HPF |
78 |
78/109 (71.6%) |
|
Chia et al. [53] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 6 or more RBCs/HPF in males or of 10 or more RBCs/HPF in females |
181 |
181/294 (61.6%) |
|
Elton et al. [54] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 4 or more RBCs/HPF |
194 |
194/275 (70.5%) |
|
Stewart et al. [55] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 3 or more RBCs/HPF |
132 |
132/160 (82.5%) |
|
Freeland [56] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Trace or scores of 1+ to 3+ on urine dipstick |
102 |
102/134 (76.1%) |
|
Dunn et al. [57] |
Urinalysis |
Microscopic |
Presence of 3 or more RBCs/HPF |
62 |
62/76 (81.6%) |
|
Bishop [58] |
Urine dipstick |
Microscopic |
Positive urine dipstick |
44 |
44/50 (88%) |
Abbreviations (alphabetical order): NR = not reported; HPF = High power Field; RBC = Red Blood Cell.
Table 3: Data on microhematuria in patients presenting with confirmed urolithiasis at the emergency department.
|
Authors |
Microhematuria test |
No. patients with microhematuria |
Microhematuria prevalence |
Diagnostic test for urolithiasis |
|
Kim et al. [13] |
Urinalysis |
750 |
750/798 (94%) |
Unenhanced MDCT |
|
Desai et al. [14] |
Urinalysis |
231 |
231/282 (81.9%) |
Non-contrast CT |
|
Türk et al. [15] |
Urinalysis |
344 |
344/388 (88.7%) |
Non-contrast complete abdominal CT |
|
Shrestha et al. [16] |
Urinalysis |
27 |
27/61 (44.3%) |
Renal US |
|
Odoemene et al. [17]* |
Urinalysis |
62 |
62/69 (89.9%) |
Abdominal US, IVU, CT |
|
Mefford et al. [18] |
Urinalysis |
321 |
321/393 (81.7%) |
Non-contrast abdominal or pelvic CT |
|
Rapp et al. [19]* |
Urinalysis |
177 |
177/222 (79.7%) |
Non-contrast CT |
|
Fukuhara et al. [22]* |
Urinalysis or urine dipstick |
323 |
323/358 (90.2%) |
Plain abdominal X-ray, helical contrast enhanced or non-contrast CT |
|
Dorfman et al. [23] |
Urinalysis |
254 |
245/339 (74.9%) |
Abdominal CT |
|
Hall et al. [26]* |
Urine dipstick |
193 |
193/233 (82.8) |
Non-enhanced CT |
|
Zwank et al. [27] |
Urinalysis |
52 |
52/62 (83.9) |
CT |
|
Abdel-Gawad et al. [28] |
Urinalysis |
835 |
835/939 (88.9) |
Color doppler or gray-scale US, abdomen X-ray, helical CT |
|
Inci et al. [7] |
Urinalysis |
46 |
46/83 (55.4) |
Unenhanced MDCT |
|
Lallas et al. [29] |
Urinalysis |
18 |
18/32 (56.3) |
US, Abdomen X-ray, IVU, CT |
|
|
Urine dipstick |
21 |
21/32 (65.6) |
|
|
Xafis et al. [31] |
Urinalysis |
341 |
341/507 (67.3) |
Unenhanced MDCT |
|
Kartal et al. [35] |
Urinalysis |
121 |
121/176 (68.8) |
IVU, US, spiral CT, stone passage |
|
Gaspari and Horst [37] |
Urinalysis |
54 |
54/58 (93.1) |
US, CT |
|
Argyropoulos et al. [8] |
Urine dipstick |
539 |
539/564 (95.6) |
Abdomen X-ray, US |
|
Unal et al. [38] |
Urinalysis |
92 |
92/114 (80.7) |
US, excretory urography, non-enhanced helical CT |
|
Tack et al. [39] |
Urinalysis or Urine dipstick |
37 |
37/38 (97.4) |
Excretory urography, non-enhanced helical MDCT |
|
Kobayashi et al. [40] |
Urine dipstick |
346 |
346/452 (76.5) |
Abdomen X-ray, US, CT |
|
|
Urinalysis |
317 |
317/452 (70.1) |
|
|
Eray et al. [41] |
Urinalysis |
37 |
37/54 (68.5) |
Abdomen X-ray, spiral CT, stone passage |
|
Luchs et al. 42[] |
Urinalysis |
492 |
492/587 (83.8) |
CT, stone passage |
|
Hamm et al. [43] |
Urinalysis |
53 |
53/80 (66.3) |
Unenhanced low dose elical CT |
|
Li et al. [44] |
Urinalysis or Urine dipstick |
360 |
360/397 (90.7) |
CT, IVP |
|
Hamm et al. [45] |
Urinalysis |
76 |
76/91 (83.5) |
Helical CT |
|
Richards and Christman [46] |
Urinalysis |
88 |
88/98 (89.8) |
IVU |
|
Bove et al. [47] |
Urine dipstick |
70 |
70/87 (80.5) |
CT |
|
|
Urinalysis |
77 |
77/95 (81.1) |
|
|
|
Urinalysis or Urine dipstick |
82 |
82/95 (86.3) |
|
|
Ooi et al. [9] |
Urine dipstick |
62 |
62/65 (95.4) |
Abdomen X-ray, IVU |
|
|
Urinalysis |
46 |
46/65 (70.8) |
|
|
Ghali et al. [48] |
Urinalysis |
64 |
64/82 (78) |
Abdomen X-ray, IVU, US |
|
Gimondo et al. [50]* |
Urine dipstick |
29 |
29/29 (100) |
US |
|
Boyd and Gray [51] |
Urine dipstick |
29 |
29/29 (100) |
Abdomen X-ray, IVU |
|
Press and Smith [52] |
Urinalysis |
78 |
78/109 (71.6) |
IVU |
|
Stewart et al. [55] |
Urinalysis |
132 |
132/160 (82.5) |
IVP |
|
Freeland [56] |
Urine dipstick |
72 |
72/76 (94.7) |
IVU or stone passage |
|
Dunn et al. [57] |
Urinalysis |
62 |
62/76 (81.6) |
IVU or stone passage |
|
Bishop [58] |
Urine dipstick |
33 |
33/35 (94.3) |
IVU |
Abbreviations (alphabetical order): CT = computed tomography; HFU = High-power field; IVU = Intravenous Urography; MDCT = multidetector CT; NR = not reported; RBC = Red Blood Cell; SD = standard deviation; US = ultrasound
* This study included also patients with gross hematuria