Prevalence of microhematuria in renal colic and urolithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
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
This is a list of supplementary files associated with this preprint. Click to download.
Supplemental figure 1 Overall quality assessment of the studies included in the systematic review according to QUADAS-2 tool.
Posted 08 Jul, 2020
On 08 Aug, 2020
Received 09 Jul, 2020
On 07 Jul, 2020
Invitations sent on 07 Jul, 2020
On 07 Jul, 2020
On 06 Jul, 2020
On 06 Jul, 2020
On 09 Jun, 2020
Received 11 Feb, 2020
On 01 Feb, 2020
Received 27 Nov, 2019
On 22 Nov, 2019
Invitations sent on 21 Nov, 2019
On 17 Oct, 2019
On 16 Oct, 2019
On 16 Oct, 2019
On 16 Oct, 2019
Prevalence of microhematuria in renal colic and urolithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Posted 08 Jul, 2020
On 08 Aug, 2020
Received 09 Jul, 2020
On 07 Jul, 2020
Invitations sent on 07 Jul, 2020
On 07 Jul, 2020
On 06 Jul, 2020
On 06 Jul, 2020
On 09 Jun, 2020
Received 11 Feb, 2020
On 01 Feb, 2020
Received 27 Nov, 2019
On 22 Nov, 2019
Invitations sent on 21 Nov, 2019
On 17 Oct, 2019
On 16 Oct, 2019
On 16 Oct, 2019
On 16 Oct, 2019
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