Dergiler / Turkish journal of emergency medicine (Online) / 2019 / Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 3

A clinical prediction rule for uncomplicated ureteral stone: The STONE score; a prospective observational validation cohort study

Sayfa
91–95
Yayın Tarihi
2022-11-02
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

Conclusion: Despite the acceptable diagnostic accuracy, further modifications and enhancements of the STONE score are needed to differentiate patients with low risk prior to imaging.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Introduction: Renal colic is one of the most common complaints in patients admitted to Emergency Department (ED).
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Results: Totally, 237 patients (59.9% male) with an average age of 41.54 years (SD: 13.37) were evaluated, and 156 cases (65.8%) were proved to have renal stone.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:Conclusion: Despite the acceptable diagnostic accuracy, further modifications and enhancements of the STONE score are needed to differentiate patients with low risk prior to imaging.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Introduction: Renal colic is one of the most common complaints in patients admitted to Emergency Department (ED). Computed Tomography (CT) is the reference standard for the diagnosis of any stones in the kidneys or ureters. However, CT has classical disadvantages, such as radiation exposure, cost and availability. Recently, STONE clinical prediction criteria were suggested to identify uncomplicated ureteral stone cases among patiens admitted to the ED with abdominal pain. Primary objective of this study was the external validation of the STONE criteria. Methods: This was a diagnostic accuracy study conducted on a prospective, observational cohort. All consecutive patients who underwent a non-enhanced abdominopelvic CT scan in the ED with an initial diagnosis of ureteral stone disease were enrolled. Using a pre-prepared checklist, all data and the final diagnosis according to the CT scan were recorded. STONE score was calculated for all patients. The area under the curve (AUC) of the STONE Score and the CT, the reference standard, were compared using the ROC curve analysis. Results: Totally, 237 patients (59.9% male) with an average age of 41.54 years (SD: 13.37) were evaluated, and 156 cases (65.8%) were proved to have renal stone. The mean (SD) STONE scores in the groups of patients with renal stone and in the group of patients without renal stone group were 9.1 (2.6) and 6.0 ( 2.8), respectively (p < 0.001). The area under the curve (AUC) for the STONE score was 0.789 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.725 to 0.852). The optimum threshold value of the STONE score for the diagnosis of a renal stone was 8 or more, which had a sensitivity of 75.0% and a specificity of 70.4%. Conclusion: Despite the acceptable diagnostic accuracy, further modifications and enhancements of the STONE score are needed to differentiate patients with low risk prior to imaging.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ALINIAGERDROUDBARI, E., BABANIAMANSOUR, S., BARATLOO, A., MIRZADEH, M., SAFAIE, A. (2022). A clinical prediction rule for uncomplicated ureteral stone: The STONE score; a prospective observational validation cohort study. Turkish journal of emergency medicine (Online), Cilt: 19 - Sayı: 3, 91–95. https://ajindex.com/articles/605279

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (14)

  1. Lee YH, Huang WC, Tsai JY, et al. Epidemiological studies on the prevalence of upper urinary calculi in Taiwan. Urol Int. 2002;68:172–177
  2. Shoag J, Tasian GE, Goldfarb DS, et al. The new epidemiology of nephrolithiasis. Adv Chron Kidney Dis. 2015;22:273–278
  3. Edvardsson VO, Indridason OS, Haraldsson G, et al. Temporal trends in the incidence of kidney stone disease. Kidney Int. 2013;83:146–152
  4. Yasui T, Iguchi M, Suzuki S, et al. Prevalence and epidemiological characteristics of urolithiasis in Japan: national trends between 1965 and 2005. Urology. 2008;71:209–213
  5. 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;44:529–537
  6. Hess B. Pathophysiology, diagnosis and conservative therapy in calcium kidney calculi. Ther Umsch. 2003;60:79–87
  7. Westphalen AC, Hsia RY, Maselli JH, et al. Radiological imaging of patients with suspected urinary tract stones: national trends, diagnoses, and predictors. Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18:699–707
  8. Hyams ES, Korley FK, Pham JC, et al. Trends in imaging use during the emergency department evaluation of flank pain. J Urol. 2011;186:2270–2274
  9. Moore CL, Bomann S, Daniels B, 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
  10. Daniels B, Gross CP, Molinaro A, 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. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;67:439–448
  11. Schoenfeld EM, Pekow PS, Shieh MS, et al. The diagnosis and management of patients with renal colic across a sample of US hospitals: high CT utilization despite low rates of admission and inpatient urologic intervention. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0169160
  12. Hernandez N, Song Y, Noble VE, et al. Predicting ureteral stones in emergency department patients with flank pain: an external validation of the STONE score. World J Urol. 2016;34:1443–1446
  13. Kim B, Kim K, Kim J, et al. External validation of the STONE score and derivation of the modified STONE score. Am J Emerg Med. 2016;34:1567–1572
  14. Schoenfeld EM, Poronsky KE, Elia TR, et al. Validity of STONE scores in younger patients presenting with suspected uncomplicated renal colic. Am J Emerg Med. 2016;34:230–234