4.4 Article

Incidental Findings on CT for Suspected Renal Colic in Emergency Department Patients: Prevalence and Types in 5,383 Consecutive Examinations

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2014.07.026

关键词

Incidental findings; CT; renal colic

资金

  1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) [5R01HS18322]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: This study aimed to determine the prevalence, importance, and types of incidental findings (IF) in non-enhanced CT scans performed for suspected renal colic, based on ACR white papers and other accepted radiographic recommendations. Methods: Retrospective review of 5,383 consecutive finalized reports of nonenhanced CT using renal colic protocol performed on adult patients at 2 emergency departments over a 5.5-year period. IF were defined as those unrelated to symptoms (as opposed to alternate causes of symptoms) and were categorized as important if follow-up was recommended based on recently published consensus recommendations. Subsets of reports of those with important IF were blindly re-reviewed to calculate inter-rater variability for presence and categorization of important IF. Results: Important IF were identified in 12.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.8%-13.6%) of scans. Prevalence of important IF increased with age: important IF in individuals age >80 years were 4 times more common than for those aged 18-30 years: 28.9% (95% CI: 22.4%-36.4%) versus 6.9% (95% CI: 5.5%-8.6%), respectively, P <= .05. Women had a higher prevalence of important IF compared with men: 13.4% (95% CI: 12.2%-14.7%) versus 11.9% (95% CI: 10.7%-13.2%), but the difference was not statically significant (P = .09). There was substantial inter-rater agreement (kappa >= 0.69) regarding presence and classification of important IFs using published guidelines. Conclusions: Important IF occurred in 12.7% of non-enhanced CT scans performed for suspected renal colic in the emergency department and are more common in older individuals. Prospective studies that use radiographic recommendations to characterize IF and examine the outcome and cost of their workup are encouraged.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据