Ultra-low-dose, low-dose, and standard-dose CT of the kidney, ureters, and bladder: is there a difference? Results from a systematic review of the literature
To investigate whether reducing the radiation dose of computed tomography (CT) of the kidney, ureters, and bladder (KUB) for acute renal colic impacts upon the specificity, sensitivity, and detection of urolithiasis. A systematic review of the literature over a 20-year period between 1995 and 2015 w...
Saved in:
Published in | Clinical radiology Vol. 72; no. 1; pp. 11 - 15 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
England
Elsevier Ltd
01.01.2017
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
ISSN | 0009-9260 1365-229X 1365-229X |
DOI | 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005 |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | To investigate whether reducing the radiation dose of computed tomography (CT) of the kidney, ureters, and bladder (KUB) for acute renal colic impacts upon the specificity, sensitivity, and detection of urolithiasis.
A systematic review of the literature over a 20-year period between 1995 and 2015 was conducted of all prospective studies in the English language reporting on adult patients who underwent CT KUB or non-contrast CT for renal colic or urolithiasis. Retrospective studies and those that included pregnant females, children, non-human test subjects, cadaveric use, and simulations were excluded. Data were collected using an Excel spreadsheet and ultra-low-dose (ULD CT) and low-dose CT KUB (LD CT) was defined as a radiation dose ≤1.9 and <3.5 mSv, respectively.
A total of 417 articles were identified, and after screening, seven articles (1,104 patients) were included in the present study with a male:female ratio of 3:2. Of the four studies with ULD CT for both males and females, the prevalence of urolithiasis ranged from 36% and 73%, with additional pathologies found in 12–15%. The effective radiation dose of ULD CT ranged from 0.5–1.9 mSv. Overall, ULD CT and LD CT had a sensitivity of 90–100% and a specificity of 86–100% across all studies.
ULD CT and LD CT are effective techniques and yield high sensitivity and specificity. Although they yield comparable results against standard-dose CT KUB in detecting alternative diagnoses, they may not be as effective in detecting stones <3 mm in size or in patients with a body mass index of >30 kg/m2; however, this should be the first-line investigation for the majority of renal colic patients in the modern era. |
---|---|
AbstractList | To investigate whether reducing the radiation dose of computed tomography (CT) of the kidney, ureters, and bladder (KUB) for acute renal colic impacts upon the specificity, sensitivity, and detection of urolithiasis.
A systematic review of the literature over a 20-year period between 1995 and 2015 was conducted of all prospective studies in the English language reporting on adult patients who underwent CT KUB or non-contrast CT for renal colic or urolithiasis. Retrospective studies and those that included pregnant females, children, non-human test subjects, cadaveric use, and simulations were excluded. Data were collected using an Excel spreadsheet and ultra-low-dose (ULD CT) and low-dose CT KUB (LD CT) was defined as a radiation dose ≤1.9 and <3.5 mSv, respectively.
A total of 417 articles were identified, and after screening, seven articles (1,104 patients) were included in the present study with a male:female ratio of 3:2. Of the four studies with ULD CT for both males and females, the prevalence of urolithiasis ranged from 36% and 73%, with additional pathologies found in 12-15%. The effective radiation dose of ULD CT ranged from 0.5-1.9 mSv. Overall, ULD CT and LD CT had a sensitivity of 90-100% and a specificity of 86-100% across all studies.
ULD CT and LD CT are effective techniques and yield high sensitivity and specificity. Although they yield comparable results against standard-dose CT KUB in detecting alternative diagnoses, they may not be as effective in detecting stones <3 mm in size or in patients with a body mass index of >30 kg/m
; however, this should be the first-line investigation for the majority of renal colic patients in the modern era. Aim To investigate whether reducing the radiation dose of computed tomography (CT) of the kidney, ureters, and bladder (KUB) for acute renal colic impacts upon the specificity, sensitivity, and detection of urolithiasis. Materials and methods A systematic review of the literature over a 20-year period between 1995 and 2015 was conducted of all prospective studies in the English language reporting on adult patients who underwent CT KUB or non-contrast CT for renal colic or urolithiasis. Retrospective studies and those that included pregnant females, children, non-human test subjects, cadaveric use, and simulations were excluded. Data were collected using an Excel spreadsheet and ultra-low-dose (ULD CT) and low-dose CT KUB (LD CT) was defined as a radiation dose ≤1.9 and <3.5 mSv, respectively. Results A total of 417 articles were identified, and after screening, seven articles (1,104 patients) were included in the present study with a male:female ratio of 3:2. Of the four studies with ULD CT for both males and females, the prevalence of urolithiasis ranged from 36% and 73%, with additional pathologies found in 12–15%. The effective radiation dose of ULD CT ranged from 0.5–1.9 mSv. Overall, ULD CT and LD CT had a sensitivity of 90–100% and a specificity of 86–100% across all studies. Conclusions ULD CT and LD CT are effective techniques and yield high sensitivity and specificity. Although they yield comparable results against standard-dose CT KUB in detecting alternative diagnoses, they may not be as effective in detecting stones <3 mm in size or in patients with a body mass index of >30 kg/m2 ; however, this should be the first-line investigation for the majority of renal colic patients in the modern era. To investigate whether reducing the radiation dose of computed tomography (CT) of the kidney, ureters, and bladder (KUB) for acute renal colic impacts upon the specificity, sensitivity, and detection of urolithiasis. A systematic review of the literature over a 20-year period between 1995 and 2015 was conducted of all prospective studies in the English language reporting on adult patients who underwent CT KUB or non-contrast CT for renal colic or urolithiasis. Retrospective studies and those that included pregnant females, children, non-human test subjects, cadaveric use, and simulations were excluded. Data were collected using an Excel spreadsheet and ultra-low-dose (ULD CT) and low-dose CT KUB (LD CT) was defined as a radiation dose ≤1.9 and <3.5 mSv, respectively. A total of 417 articles were identified, and after screening, seven articles (1,104 patients) were included in the present study with a male:female ratio of 3:2. Of the four studies with ULD CT for both males and females, the prevalence of urolithiasis ranged from 36% and 73%, with additional pathologies found in 12–15%. The effective radiation dose of ULD CT ranged from 0.5–1.9 mSv. Overall, ULD CT and LD CT had a sensitivity of 90–100% and a specificity of 86–100% across all studies. ULD CT and LD CT are effective techniques and yield high sensitivity and specificity. Although they yield comparable results against standard-dose CT KUB in detecting alternative diagnoses, they may not be as effective in detecting stones <3 mm in size or in patients with a body mass index of >30 kg/m2; however, this should be the first-line investigation for the majority of renal colic patients in the modern era. To investigate whether reducing the radiation dose of computed tomography (CT) of the kidney, ureters, and bladder (KUB) for acute renal colic impacts upon the specificity, sensitivity, and detection of urolithiasis.AIMTo investigate whether reducing the radiation dose of computed tomography (CT) of the kidney, ureters, and bladder (KUB) for acute renal colic impacts upon the specificity, sensitivity, and detection of urolithiasis.A systematic review of the literature over a 20-year period between 1995 and 2015 was conducted of all prospective studies in the English language reporting on adult patients who underwent CT KUB or non-contrast CT for renal colic or urolithiasis. Retrospective studies and those that included pregnant females, children, non-human test subjects, cadaveric use, and simulations were excluded. Data were collected using an Excel spreadsheet and ultra-low-dose (ULD CT) and low-dose CT KUB (LD CT) was defined as a radiation dose ≤1.9 and <3.5 mSv, respectively.MATERIALS AND METHODSA systematic review of the literature over a 20-year period between 1995 and 2015 was conducted of all prospective studies in the English language reporting on adult patients who underwent CT KUB or non-contrast CT for renal colic or urolithiasis. Retrospective studies and those that included pregnant females, children, non-human test subjects, cadaveric use, and simulations were excluded. Data were collected using an Excel spreadsheet and ultra-low-dose (ULD CT) and low-dose CT KUB (LD CT) was defined as a radiation dose ≤1.9 and <3.5 mSv, respectively.A total of 417 articles were identified, and after screening, seven articles (1,104 patients) were included in the present study with a male:female ratio of 3:2. Of the four studies with ULD CT for both males and females, the prevalence of urolithiasis ranged from 36% and 73%, with additional pathologies found in 12-15%. The effective radiation dose of ULD CT ranged from 0.5-1.9 mSv. Overall, ULD CT and LD CT had a sensitivity of 90-100% and a specificity of 86-100% across all studies.RESULTSA total of 417 articles were identified, and after screening, seven articles (1,104 patients) were included in the present study with a male:female ratio of 3:2. Of the four studies with ULD CT for both males and females, the prevalence of urolithiasis ranged from 36% and 73%, with additional pathologies found in 12-15%. The effective radiation dose of ULD CT ranged from 0.5-1.9 mSv. Overall, ULD CT and LD CT had a sensitivity of 90-100% and a specificity of 86-100% across all studies.ULD CT and LD CT are effective techniques and yield high sensitivity and specificity. Although they yield comparable results against standard-dose CT KUB in detecting alternative diagnoses, they may not be as effective in detecting stones <3 mm in size or in patients with a body mass index of >30 kg/m2; however, this should be the first-line investigation for the majority of renal colic patients in the modern era.CONCLUSIONSULD CT and LD CT are effective techniques and yield high sensitivity and specificity. Although they yield comparable results against standard-dose CT KUB in detecting alternative diagnoses, they may not be as effective in detecting stones <3 mm in size or in patients with a body mass index of >30 kg/m2; however, this should be the first-line investigation for the majority of renal colic patients in the modern era. |
Author | Bryant, T. Somani, B.K. Rob, S. Wilson, I. |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: S. surname: Rob fullname: Rob, S. organization: Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, UK – sequence: 2 givenname: T. surname: Bryant fullname: Bryant, T. organization: Department of Radiology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, UK – sequence: 3 givenname: I. surname: Wilson fullname: Wilson, I. organization: Department of Radiology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, UK – sequence: 4 givenname: B.K. surname: Somani fullname: Somani, B.K. email: bhaskarsomani@yahoo.com organization: Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, UK |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27810168$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNqFkt9qFDEUxoNU7Lb6Al5ILr3orElmJjtTRJGl_oGCoC30LmSSM5htJqlJxrIP47s2cbsIBevNzMmZ7_uF-c45QgfOO0DoJSVLSih_s1mqIPWS5To3loS0T9CC1rytGOuvDtCCENJXPePkEB3FuCnHhjXP0CFbdYXQLdDvS5uCrKy_rbSPcIL_VtJpHFN-yqD_tPD6AvsRpx-Ar412sD3Bc4AEIe7Eg5VaQzjFJhZRACyxNuOYK6fgPf4GcbYp4jH4KX-K25hgkskoHOCXgds93JrMlCmzn6Ono7QRXty_j9Hlx7OL9efq_OunL-sP55VqOEsV71nXU8Va3ap6xXWvuJSKKcKk0kOtaN0QCi2jjMMguR40axVQKsdWD6D7-hi93nFvgv85Q0xiMlGBtdKBn6OgXc1XrM_sLH11L52HCbS4CWaSYSv2kWZBtxOo4GMMMAplUv5L73LQxgpKRBGKjSjTE2V6pZenl63sgXVPf9T0dmeCHFCOMYioTAlcmwAqCe3N4_Z3D-zKGmeUtNewhbjxc3A5ekFFZIKI72WJykpRXpOGkqsMOP034H-33wECV90i |
CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1016_j_crad_2019_03_022 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_euf_2024_01_011 crossref_primary_10_3390_healthcare11040552 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11934_023_01171_8 crossref_primary_10_1097_UPJ_0000000000000030 crossref_primary_10_23736_S2724_6051_21_04046_7 crossref_primary_10_37939_jrmc_v27i3_2277 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00247_023_05717_3 crossref_primary_10_3390_medicina60121952 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11934_020_00973_4 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ajur_2019_03_007 crossref_primary_10_1590_1516_3180_2020_0374_r3_1902021 crossref_primary_10_1177_1756287218754765 crossref_primary_10_1002_mp_17319 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2019_0091 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ajem_2018_01_003 crossref_primary_10_1259_bjr_20210013 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2019_0574 crossref_primary_10_3390_diagnostics12061441 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2017_0123 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00120_023_02193_3 crossref_primary_10_1093_bjr_tqad029 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2019_0149 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00330_018_5849_5 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00092_019_2216_z crossref_primary_10_3390_medicina59091677 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00330_020_07537_7 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2021_0103 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00256_017_2811_6 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ajur_2019_12_013 crossref_primary_10_1097_MOP_0000000000000880 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_radi_2020_12_006 crossref_primary_10_1177_17562872231198629 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00345_021_03818_y crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jrras_2023_100629 crossref_primary_10_1111_1742_6723_12950 crossref_primary_10_1111_acem_13432 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12301_021_00148_8 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jpurol_2024_03_007 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_mcna_2017_10_004 crossref_primary_10_3390_diagnostics14060643 crossref_primary_10_1177_02841851211035896 crossref_primary_10_1111_bju_15116 crossref_primary_10_3390_tomography8040138 crossref_primary_10_1177_20514158221091066 crossref_primary_10_1021_acsomega_8b00514 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00261_024_04223_w crossref_primary_10_36290_uro_2020_024 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2016_0895 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejrad_2023_110717 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00345_020_03142_x crossref_primary_10_1007_s11934_020_0968_3 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2022_0049 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ajur_2018_06_005 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_radphyschem_2025_112523 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00345_017_2055_z crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2022_0722 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2022_0008 crossref_primary_10_1002_emp2_12446 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11934_023_01163_8 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11934_019_0878_4 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11934_022_01102_z crossref_primary_10_17116_operhirurg2020403137 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jpurol_2016_12_021 crossref_primary_10_1093_rpd_ncab054 crossref_primary_10_3390_diagnostics13030458 crossref_primary_10_1097_MOU_0000000000000572 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00092_024_6348_4 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12517_021_07107_1 crossref_primary_10_1097_CU9_0000000000000181 crossref_primary_10_1177_2051415819828547 crossref_primary_10_1177_20584601221132461 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ejrad_2020_108923 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_urology_2018_06_041 crossref_primary_10_1097_MEJ_0000000000000610 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11934_020_0970_9 crossref_primary_10_3390_medicina59030475 crossref_primary_10_1002_acm2_12911 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_acra_2024_10_045 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00330_022_08739_x crossref_primary_10_1016_j_urology_2018_11_035 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2022_0656 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ucl_2024_07_007 crossref_primary_10_1177_2058460121989313 crossref_primary_10_1159_000488062 crossref_primary_10_1097_MOU_0000000000001271 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00120_022_01792_w crossref_primary_10_1111_bju_15839 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00092_020_4477_y crossref_primary_10_1016_j_juro_2017_10_028 crossref_primary_10_1089_end_2017_0136 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13244_022_01300_w |
Cites_doi | 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.09.039 10.4103/0970-1591.126884 10.1148/rg.287085042 10.2967/jnmt.106.037846 10.1080/02841850500216004 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.09.008 10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.2568 10.1007/s00330-005-2720-2 10.2214/AJR.06.0793 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004980 10.2214/ajr.180.2.1800305 10.2214/AJR.05.1863 10.1097/01.rct.0000191685.58838.ef 10.2214/ajr.178.5.1781058 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65178-6 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | 2016 The Royal College of Radiologists The Royal College of Radiologists Copyright © 2016 The Royal College of Radiologists. All rights reserved. |
Copyright_xml | – notice: 2016 The Royal College of Radiologists – notice: The Royal College of Radiologists – notice: Copyright © 2016 The Royal College of Radiologists. All rights reserved. |
DBID | AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
DOI | 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005 |
DatabaseName | CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE MEDLINE - Academic |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Medicine |
EISSN | 1365-229X |
EndPage | 15 |
ExternalDocumentID | 27810168 10_1016_j_crad_2016_10_005 S000992601630410X 1_s2_0_S000992601630410X |
Genre | Meta-Analysis Comparative Study Systematic Review Journal Article |
GroupedDBID | --- --K --M .1- .55 .FO .GJ .~1 0R~ 1B1 1P~ 1RT 1~. 1~5 29B 3O- 4.4 457 4G. 53G 5GY 5RE 5VS 6PF 7-5 71M 8P~ 9JM AABNK AAEDT AAEDW AAIKJ AAKOC AALRI AAOAW AAQFI AATTM AAWTL AAXKI AAXUO AAYWO ABBQC ABFNM ABJNI ABMAC ABMZM ABXDB ACDAQ ACGFS ACIEU ACRLP ACVFH ADBBV ADCNI ADEZE AEBSH AEIPS AEKER AENEX AEUPX AEVXI AFFNX AFJKZ AFPUW AFRHN AFTJW AFXIZ AGCQF AGHFR AGUBO AGYEJ AHHHB AIEXJ AIGII AIIUN AIKHN AITUG AJRQY AJUYK AKBMS AKRWK AKYEP ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMRAJ ANKPU ANZVX APXCP ASPBG AVWKF AXJTR AZFZN BKOJK BLXMC BNPGV CAG COF CS3 DU5 EBS EFJIC EFKBS EJD EO8 EO9 EP2 EP3 F5P FDB FEDTE FGOYB FIRID FNPLU FYGXN G-2 G-Q GBLVA HEI HMK HMO HVGLF HZ~ IHE J1W J5H K-O KOM M27 M41 MO0 N9A O-L O9- OAUVE OI~ OU0 OVD OZT P-8 P-9 P2P PC. Q38 R2- ROL RPZ SAE SCC SDF SDG SDP SEL SES SEW SPCBC SSH SSZ T5K TEORI UHS UV1 WH7 WUQ X7M Z5R ZGI ZXP ~G- AACTN AFCTW AFKWA AJOXV AMFUW RIG AAIAV ABLVK ABYKQ AHPSJ AJBFU EFLBG LCYCR ZA5 AAYXX AGRNS CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c462t-692891c25d5c376d9c6aac2c02acdb3c13401e52126eba6dbd25ce11af5dbed93 |
IEDL.DBID | .~1 |
ISSN | 0009-9260 1365-229X |
IngestDate | Thu Jul 10 20:52:14 EDT 2025 Mon Jul 21 05:55:25 EDT 2025 Tue Jul 01 01:55:17 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 24 23:12:06 EDT 2025 Fri Feb 23 02:24:32 EST 2024 Tue Feb 25 20:09:39 EST 2025 Tue Aug 26 16:37:38 EDT 2025 |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 1 |
Language | English |
License | Copyright © 2016 The Royal College of Radiologists. All rights reserved. |
LinkModel | DirectLink |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c462t-692891c25d5c376d9c6aac2c02acdb3c13401e52126eba6dbd25ce11af5dbed93 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-2 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-1 ObjectType-Review-3 content type line 23 ObjectType-Undefined-4 |
PMID | 27810168 |
PQID | 1836729376 |
PQPubID | 23479 |
PageCount | 5 |
ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_1836729376 pubmed_primary_27810168 crossref_citationtrail_10_1016_j_crad_2016_10_005 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_crad_2016_10_005 elsevier_sciencedirect_doi_10_1016_j_crad_2016_10_005 elsevier_clinicalkeyesjournals_1_s2_0_S000992601630410X elsevier_clinicalkey_doi_10_1016_j_crad_2016_10_005 |
ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 2017-01-01 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2017-01-01 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 01 year: 2017 text: 2017-01-01 day: 01 |
PublicationDecade | 2010 |
PublicationPlace | England |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: England |
PublicationTitle | Clinical radiology |
PublicationTitleAlternate | Clin Radiol |
PublicationYear | 2017 |
Publisher | Elsevier Ltd |
Publisher_xml | – name: Elsevier Ltd |
References | Heldt, Smith, Anderson (bib19) 2012; 188 Drake, Jain, Bryant (bib20) 2014; 30 Poletti, Platon, Rutschmann (bib11) 2007; 188 Hamm, Knopfle, Wartenberg (bib8) 2002; 167 Preminger, Tiselius, Assimos (bib16) 2007; 52 Tom Walton. BAUS. Management of renal and ureteric stones. Available at Matlaga, Shah, Assimos (bib4) 2003; 5 BAUS. Kidney stones. Available at Verdun, Bochud, Gundinchet (bib18) 2008; 28 . Kluner, Hein, Gralla (bib10) 2006; 30 Türk, Knoll, Petrik (bib2) 2015 NHS England. NHS Imaging and Radiodiagnostic activity in England 2013/2013 release. Available at Moore, Daniels, Ghita (bib14) 2015; 65 Gurung, Khan, Maataoui (bib6) 2005; 15 Tekath, Dutheil, Bellini (bib21) 2014 May 30; 4 Kim, Hwang, Choi (bib9) 2005; 46 Mulkens, Daineffe, De Wijngaert (bib12) 2007; 188 Goldman (bib7) 2007; 35 Spielmann, Heneghan, Lee (bib17) 2002; 178 (Last accessed 2016 Jan 7). Tack, Sourtzis, Delpierre (bib13) 2003; 180 NICE. Renal or ureteric colic—acute—Summary. Available at 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib5 Kluner (10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib10) 2006; 30 Preminger (10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib16) 2007; 52 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib1 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib15 Kim (10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib9) 2005; 46 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib3 Moore (10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib14) 2015; 65 Türk (10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib2) 2015 Tack (10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib13) 2003; 180 Hamm (10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib8) 2002; 167 Matlaga (10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib4) 2003; 5 Spielmann (10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib17) 2002; 178 Poletti (10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib11) 2007; 188 Tekath (10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib21) 2014; 4 Heldt (10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib19) 2012; 188 Mulkens (10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib12) 2007; 188 Verdun (10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib18) 2008; 28 Drake (10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib20) 2014; 30 Gurung (10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib6) 2005; 15 Goldman (10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib7) 2007; 35 |
References_xml | – volume: 188 start-page: 124 year: 2012 end-page: 129 ident: bib19 article-title: Ureteral calculi detection using low dose computerized tomography protocols is compromised in overweight and underweight patients publication-title: J Urol – reference: BAUS. Kidney stones. Available at: – volume: 35 start-page: 4213 year: 2007 end-page: 4225 ident: bib7 article-title: Principles of CT: radiation dose and image quality publication-title: J Nucl Med Technol – volume: 28 start-page: 1807 year: 2008 end-page: 1816 ident: bib18 article-title: Quality initiatives radiation risk: what you should know to tell your patient publication-title: RadioGraphics – volume: 65 start-page: 189 year: 2015 end-page: 198 ident: bib14 article-title: Accuracy of reduced-dose computed tomography for ureteral stones in emergency department patients publication-title: Ann Emerg Med – reference: NHS England. NHS Imaging and Radiodiagnostic activity in England 2013/2013 release. Available at: – volume: 5 start-page: 227 year: 2003 end-page: 231 ident: bib4 article-title: Drug-induced urinary calculi publication-title: Rev Urolo – volume: 178 start-page: 1058 year: 2002 end-page: 1062 ident: bib17 article-title: Decreasing the radiation dose for renal stone CT: a feasibility study of single-and multidetector CT publication-title: AJR Am J Roentgenol – reference: . – volume: 180 start-page: 305 year: 2003 end-page: 311 ident: bib13 article-title: Low-dose unenhanced multidetector CT of patients with suspected renal colic publication-title: AJR Am J Roentgenol – volume: 52 start-page: 1610 year: 2007 end-page: 1631 ident: bib16 article-title: 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi publication-title: Eur Urol – reference: Tom Walton. BAUS. Management of renal and ureteric stones. Available at: – volume: 15 start-page: 1898 year: 2005 end-page: 1905 ident: bib6 article-title: Multislice CT of the pelvis: dose reduction with regard to image quality using 16-row CT publication-title: Eur Radiol – volume: 167 start-page: 1687 year: 2002 end-page: 1691 ident: bib8 article-title: Low dose unenhanced helical computerized tomography for the evaluation of acute flank pain publication-title: J Urol – volume: 188 start-page: 553 year: 2007 end-page: 562 ident: bib12 article-title: Urinary stone disease: comparison of standard-dose and low-dose with 4D MDCT tube current modulation publication-title: AJR Am J Roentgenol – volume: 188 start-page: 927 year: 2007 end-page: 933 ident: bib11 article-title: Low-dose versus standard-dose CT protocol in patients with clinically suspected renal colic publication-title: AJR Am J Roentgenol – volume: 4 start-page: e004980 year: 2014 May 30 ident: bib21 article-title: Comparison of the ultra-low-dose publication-title: BMJ Open – reference: NICE. Renal or ureteric colic—acute—Summary. Available at: – volume: 30 start-page: 137 year: 2014 end-page: 143 ident: bib20 article-title: Should low-dose computed tomography kidneys, ureter and bladder be the new investigation of choice in suspected renal colic? A systematic review publication-title: Ind J Urol – volume: 30 start-page: 44 year: 2006 end-page: 50 ident: bib10 article-title: Does ultra-low-dose CT with a radiation dose equivalent to that of KUB suffice to detect renal and ureteral calculi? publication-title: J Comput Assist Tomogr – year: 2015 ident: bib2 article-title: Guidelines on urolithiasis – reference: . (Last accessed 2016 Jan 7). – volume: 46 start-page: 756 year: 2005 end-page: 763 ident: bib9 article-title: Low-dose and standard-dose unenhanced helical computed tomography for the assessment of acute renal colic: prospective comparative study publication-title: Acta Radiol – ident: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib3 – volume: 5 start-page: 227 issue: 4 year: 2003 ident: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib4 article-title: Drug-induced urinary calculi publication-title: Rev Urolo – volume: 52 start-page: 1610 year: 2007 ident: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib16 article-title: 2007 Guideline for the management of ureteral calculi publication-title: Eur Urol doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2007.09.039 – volume: 30 start-page: 137 issue: 2 year: 2014 ident: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib20 article-title: Should low-dose computed tomography kidneys, ureter and bladder be the new investigation of choice in suspected renal colic? A systematic review publication-title: Ind J Urol doi: 10.4103/0970-1591.126884 – ident: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib15 – ident: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib5 – volume: 28 start-page: 1807 issue: 7 year: 2008 ident: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib18 article-title: Quality initiatives radiation risk: what you should know to tell your patient publication-title: RadioGraphics doi: 10.1148/rg.287085042 – ident: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib1 – volume: 35 start-page: 4213 year: 2007 ident: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib7 article-title: Principles of CT: radiation dose and image quality publication-title: J Nucl Med Technol doi: 10.2967/jnmt.106.037846 – volume: 46 start-page: 756 year: 2005 ident: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib9 article-title: Low-dose and standard-dose unenhanced helical computed tomography for the assessment of acute renal colic: prospective comparative study publication-title: Acta Radiol doi: 10.1080/02841850500216004 – year: 2015 ident: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib2 – volume: 65 start-page: 189 issue: 2 year: 2015 ident: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib14 article-title: Accuracy of reduced-dose computed tomography for ureteral stones in emergency department patients publication-title: Ann Emerg Med doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.09.008 – volume: 188 start-page: 124 year: 2012 ident: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib19 article-title: Ureteral calculi detection using low dose computerized tomography protocols is compromised in overweight and underweight patients publication-title: J Urol doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2012.02.2568 – volume: 15 start-page: 1898 year: 2005 ident: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib6 article-title: Multislice CT of the pelvis: dose reduction with regard to image quality using 16-row CT publication-title: Eur Radiol doi: 10.1007/s00330-005-2720-2 – volume: 188 start-page: 927 year: 2007 ident: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib11 article-title: Low-dose versus standard-dose CT protocol in patients with clinically suspected renal colic publication-title: AJR Am J Roentgenol doi: 10.2214/AJR.06.0793 – volume: 4 start-page: e004980 issue: 5 year: 2014 ident: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib21 article-title: Comparison of the ultra-low-dose Veo algorithm with the gold standard filtered back projection for detecting pulmonary asbestos-related conditions: a clinical observational study publication-title: BMJ Open doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004980 – volume: 180 start-page: 305 year: 2003 ident: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib13 article-title: Low-dose unenhanced multidetector CT of patients with suspected renal colic publication-title: AJR Am J Roentgenol doi: 10.2214/ajr.180.2.1800305 – volume: 188 start-page: 553 year: 2007 ident: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib12 article-title: Urinary stone disease: comparison of standard-dose and low-dose with 4D MDCT tube current modulation publication-title: AJR Am J Roentgenol doi: 10.2214/AJR.05.1863 – volume: 30 start-page: 44 year: 2006 ident: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib10 article-title: Does ultra-low-dose CT with a radiation dose equivalent to that of KUB suffice to detect renal and ureteral calculi? publication-title: J Comput Assist Tomogr doi: 10.1097/01.rct.0000191685.58838.ef – volume: 178 start-page: 1058 year: 2002 ident: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib17 article-title: Decreasing the radiation dose for renal stone CT: a feasibility study of single-and multidetector CT publication-title: AJR Am J Roentgenol doi: 10.2214/ajr.178.5.1781058 – volume: 167 start-page: 1687 year: 2002 ident: 10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005_bib8 article-title: Low dose unenhanced helical computerized tomography for the evaluation of acute flank pain publication-title: J Urol doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)65178-6 |
SSID | ssj0009424 |
Score | 2.4630227 |
SecondaryResourceType | review_article |
Snippet | To investigate whether reducing the radiation dose of computed tomography (CT) of the kidney, ureters, and bladder (KUB) for acute renal colic impacts upon the... Aim To investigate whether reducing the radiation dose of computed tomography (CT) of the kidney, ureters, and bladder (KUB) for acute renal colic impacts upon... |
SourceID | proquest pubmed crossref elsevier |
SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source Publisher |
StartPage | 11 |
SubjectTerms | Adolescent Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Child Child, Preschool Female Humans Infant Infant, Newborn Male Middle Aged Prevalence Radiation Dosage Radiation Exposure - prevention & control Radiation Exposure - standards Radiation Exposure - statistics & numerical data Radiation Protection - methods Radiation Protection - statistics & numerical data Radiographic Image Enhancement - methods Radiology Reproducibility of Results Sensitivity and Specificity Tomography, X-Ray Computed - standards Tomography, X-Ray Computed - statistics & numerical data Urologic Diseases - diagnostic imaging Urologic Diseases - epidemiology Young Adult |
Title | Ultra-low-dose, low-dose, and standard-dose CT of the kidney, ureters, and bladder: is there a difference? Results from a systematic review of the literature |
URI | https://www.clinicalkey.com/#!/content/1-s2.0-S000992601630410X https://www.clinicalkey.es/playcontent/1-s2.0-S000992601630410X https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2016.10.005 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27810168 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1836729376 |
Volume | 72 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1La9wwEBYhhdJLafrcNg0q9NY4sWRJa_dSwtKwbUkOJQt7E7I0hm2NHWwvIZf-k_zXjGxrl9Imhd6MrIetGY2-keZByHthmSikVBHnzkRCugzXXCoiZvNUuSnIpA-xcXau5gvxdSmXO2QWfGG8WeUo-weZ3kvrseR4nM3jy9XK-_giuukjYqFKzuKl92AXU2_Wd_Rra-aRCS5CNjVfe3ScGWy8bGN8tFCmjnoLL3nX5nQX-Ow3odMn5PGIHunJ8IF7ZAeqp-Th2Xg__ozcLMquMVFZX0WubuGQbp9M5Wg4N-iL6OyC1gVFAEh_rlwF14d03XjjmHaonJdeKDUf6ar1lRqghoZ0KhY-0e_Qrsuupd5BBV9tQ0LTwR0mdF5uAjc_J4vTzxezeTQmYIisULyLVIbqGLNcOmlRELnMKmMstzE31uWJZQlqZ-C9fxXkRrnccWmBMVNIl4PLkhdkt6oreEVo5lKWFDF3YBAjZthNLBALQQIIuXhhJ4SFmdd2jE7uk2SUOpih_dCeWtpTy5chtSbkw6bN5RCb497aSSCoDl6nKCc1bh33tpr-rRW041JvNdMt17H-gx0nRG5a_sbR_xzxXeA2jUvd39-YCuo1jpQmCnUhpMSEvBzYcPPffOojtan09X-O-oY84h6w9IdL-2S3a9bwFuFWlx_06-mAPDj58m1-fgvViijO |
linkProvider | Elsevier |
linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1bb9MwFLZGJwEviOsoVyPxxsJix3YTXtBUMXVs7QNqpb5Zju1IhSiZklSIH8N_5TixWyHYkHiLHB878bGPP9vnfEboLdOEFZyLiFKjIsZNBmMuZRHReSrMxPKkp9iYL8RsxT6v-foATUMsjHOr9LZ_sOm9tfYpJ741T642GxfjC-imZ8SCJTmJ17fQoWOnYiN0eHp-MVvsuXcZZeFCNSfgY2cGNy_dKEcYSsT73smLXzc_XYc_-3no7D665wEkPh2-8QE6sNVDdHvuj8gfoZ-rsmtUVNbfI1O39hjvn1RlcNg66JPwdInrAgMGxN82prI_jvG2cf4x7ZA5L51daj7gTesyNRYrHG5U0fYj_mLbbdm12MWowKs9KzQeImJC4eWOu_kxWp19Wk5nkb-DIdJM0C4SGazIiKbccA22yGRaKKWpjqnSJk80SWCBZl0AsLC5EiY3lGtLiCq4ya3JkidoVNWVfYpwZlKSFDE1VgFMzKCYmAEcsokF1EULPUYktLzUnqDc3ZNRyuCJ9lU6bUmnLZcG2hqjdzuZq4Ge48bcSVCoDIGnYColzB43Sk3-JmVbP9pbSWRLZSz_6JFjxHeSv3Xqf9b4JvQ2CaPdHeGoytZbqClNBCyHQBNjdDR0w91_04kjaxPps_-s9TW6M1vOL-Xl-eLiObpLHX7p95peoFHXbO1LQF9d_sqPrl_qHit_ |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Ultra-low-dose%2C+low-dose%2C+and+standard-dose+CT+of+the+kidney%2C+ureters%2C+and+bladder%3A+is+there+a+difference%3F+Results+from+a+systematic+review+of+the+literature&rft.jtitle=Clinical+radiology&rft.au=Rob%2C+S&rft.au=Bryant%2C+T&rft.au=Wilson%2C+I&rft.au=Somani%2C+B+K&rft.date=2017-01-01&rft.issn=1365-229X&rft.eissn=1365-229X&rft.volume=72&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=11&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.crad.2016.10.005&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT |
thumbnail_m | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/image/custom?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.clinicalkey.com%2Fck-thumbnails%2F00099260%2FS0009926016X0013X%2Fcov150h.gif |