S'abonner

Imaging in Suspected Renal Colic: Systematic Review of the Literature and Multispecialty Consensus - 23/08/19

Doi : 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2019.04.021 
Christopher L. Moore, MD a, , Christopher R. Carpenter, MD, MSc b, Marta E. Heilbrun, MD c, Kevin Klauer, DO, EJD d, e, Amy Krambeck, MD c, Courtney Moreno, MD c, Erick M. Remer, MD f, Charles Scales, MD g, Melissa M. Shaw, BS a, Kevan M. Sternberg, MD h
a Department of Emergency Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 
b Department of Emergency Medicine, Washington University in Saint Louis, Saint Louis, MO 
c Department of Radiology & Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA 
d Department of Family Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 
e Department of Osteopathic Specialties, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 
f Imaging Institute and Glickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH 
g Duke Clinical Research Institute and the Department of Surgery (Urology), Duke University, School of Medicine Durham, NC 
h Department of Urology, University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, VT 

Corresponding Author.

Abstract

Study objective

Renal colic is common and computed tomography (CT) is frequently used when the diagnosis of kidney stone is suspected. CT is accurate but exposes patients to ionizing radiation and has not been shown to alter either interventional approaches or hospital admission rates. This multiorganizational transdisciplinary collaboration seeks evidence-based, multispecialty consensus on optimal imaging across different clinical scenarios in patients with suspected renal colic in the acute setting.

Methods

In conjunction with the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) Emergency Quality Network, we formed a 9-member panel with 3 physician representatives each from ACEP, the American College of Radiology, and the American Urology Association. A systematic literature review was used as the basis for a 3-step modified Delphi process to seek consensus on optimal imaging in 29 specific clinical scenarios.

Results

From an initial search yielding 6,337 records, there were 232 relevant articles of acceptable evidence quality to guide the literature summary. At the completion of the Delphi process consensus, out of the 29 scenarios agreement was rated as perfect in 15 (52%), excellent in 8 (28%), good in 3 (10%), and moderate in 3 (10%). There were no scenarios in which at least moderate consensus was not reached. CT was recommended in 7 scenarios (24%), with ultrasonography in 9 (31%) and no further imaging needed in 12 (45%).

Conclusion

Evidence and multispecialty consensus support ultrasonography or no further imaging in specific clinical scenarios, with reduced-radiation-dose CT to be used when CT is needed for patients with suspected renal colic.

Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.

Plan


 Please see page 392 for the Editor’s Capsule Summary of this article.
 Supervising editor: Gregory W. Hendey, MD. Specific detailed information about possible conflict of interest for individual editors is available at editors.
 Author contributions: CLM conceived the study. AL, CLM, EKR, KK, and MS drafted the article. All authors designed the analysis methods and performed data collection. All authors interpreted and analyzed the data, edited the article, and approved the final article for publication. CLM takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.
 All authors attest to meeting the four ICMJE.org authorship criteria: (1) Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND (2) Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND (3) Final approval of the version to be published; AND (4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
 Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org). This work was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grant R18HS023778. Dr. Moore declares grant funds from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Philips Healthcare, nonfinancial support from BK Medical and GE Healthcare, and is a colsultant for American College of Emergency Physicians. Dr. Krambeck is a consultant for Lumenis and Boston Scientific. Dr. Scales declares grant funds from NIDDK and Allena Pharmaceuticals. Ms. Shaw declares grant funds from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Sternberg is a consultant for Bard Endourology.


© 2019  American College of Emergency Physicians. Publié par Elsevier Masson SAS. Tous droits réservés.
Ajouter à ma bibliothèque Retirer de ma bibliothèque Imprimer
Export

    Export citations

  • Fichier

  • Contenu

Vol 74 - N° 3

P. 391-399 - septembre 2019 Retour au numéro
Article précédent Article précédent
  • The Utility and Survivorship of Peripheral Intravenous Catheters Inserted in the Emergency Department
  • Hamid Shokoohi, Keith S. Boniface, Paige Kulie, Andrew Long, Melissa McCarthy
| Article suivant Article suivant
  • What Is the Diagnostic Accuracy of Point-of-Care Ultrasonography in Patients With Suspected Blunt Thoracoabdominal Trauma?
  • Brit Long, Michael D. April

Bienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.

Déjà abonné à cette revue ?

Mon compte


Plateformes Elsevier Masson

Déclaration CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM est déclaré à la CNIL, déclaration n° 1286925.

En application de la loi nº78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 relative à l'informatique, aux fichiers et aux libertés, vous disposez des droits d'opposition (art.26 de la loi), d'accès (art.34 à 38 de la loi), et de rectification (art.36 de la loi) des données vous concernant. Ainsi, vous pouvez exiger que soient rectifiées, complétées, clarifiées, mises à jour ou effacées les informations vous concernant qui sont inexactes, incomplètes, équivoques, périmées ou dont la collecte ou l'utilisation ou la conservation est interdite.
Les informations personnelles concernant les visiteurs de notre site, y compris leur identité, sont confidentielles.
Le responsable du site s'engage sur l'honneur à respecter les conditions légales de confidentialité applicables en France et à ne pas divulguer ces informations à des tiers.


Tout le contenu de ce site: Copyright © 2024 Elsevier, ses concédants de licence et ses contributeurs. Tout les droits sont réservés, y compris ceux relatifs à l'exploration de textes et de données, a la formation en IA et aux technologies similaires. Pour tout contenu en libre accès, les conditions de licence Creative Commons s'appliquent.