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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inClinical radiology Vol. 72; no. 1; pp. 11 - 15
Main Authors Rob, S., Bryant, T., Wilson, I., Somani, B.K.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England Elsevier Ltd 01.01.2017
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text
ISSN0009-9260
1365-229X
1365-229X
DOI10.1016/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