Volume : 10, Issue : 12, December – 2023
Title:
ASSESSMENT OF THE DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY OF MICROHEMATURIA VERSUS GROSS HEMATURIA IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF UROLITHIASIS
Authors :
Abdulrahman abed Alqurashi, Othman Abdullah Alnemari, Abdullah Khalafallah Alnemari, Abdullah Hameed AlMalki, Mohammed Hamed Alosaimi, Mohammed Mihmas Albaqami
Abstract :
Background: Urolithiasis, commonly known as kidney stones, is a prevalent condition that affects millions of people worldwide. Hematuria, the presence of blood in the urine, has long been considered an important clinical marker for urolithiasis. Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of microhematuria and macrohematuria compared to computed tomography (CT) diagnosis as the reference standard for urolithiasis. Additionally, we aimed to evaluate the role of hydronephrosis in diagnosing urolithiasis. Methods: A total of 267 patients with suspected urolithiasis who underwent both CT scans and urine analysis were included in the study. Patients with specific medical conditions that could interfere with the interpretation of the results were excluded. The diagnostic test accuracy of gross hematuria, microscopic hematuria, and hydronephrosis was evaluated by calculating sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: The analysis revealed that gross hematuria exhibited a high sensitivity of 98.7% (95% CI: 95.7% – 99.7%) but had a low specificity of 6.0% (95% CI: 2.1% – 14.6%). Microscopic hematuria showed a sensitivity of 97.2% (95% CI: 93.5% – 98.9%) and a specificity of 4.4% (95% CI: 1.5% – 11.2%). Hydronephrosis demonstrated a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 97.4% – 100%) but had a specificity of 7.2% (95% CI: 3.2% – 15.3%). The NPV for gross hematuria, microscopic hematuria, and hydronephrosis were 6.0% (95% CI: 2.1% – 14.6%), 4.4% (95% CI: 1.5% – 11.2%), and 0% (95% CI: 0% – 2.7%), respectively. Conclusion: Gross hematuria and microscopic hematuria showed high sensitivity but low specificity in diagnosing urolithiasis. Hydronephrosis exhibited excellent sensitivity but limited specificity and a low NPV. These findings highlight the importance of a comprehensive diagnostic approach that combines clinical evaluation, urine analysis, and imaging modalities such as CT scans to achieve accurate urolithiasis diagnosis. Clinicians should interpret hematuria findings cautiously due to the potential for false-positive results. Integrating these parameters into a diagnostic algorithm can assist in clinical decision-making and patient management. Further research is needed to validate these findings in larger and more diverse populations.
Cite This Article:
Please cite this article in press Abdulrahman abed Alqurashi et al., Assessment Of The Diagnostic Accuracy Of Microhematuria Versus Gross Hematuria In The Diagnosis Of Urolithiasis, Indo Am. J. P. Sci, 2023; 10 (12).
Number of Downloads : 10
References:
1. Bartges JW, Callens AJ. Urolithiasis. Veterinary Clinics: Small Animal Practice. 2015 Jul 1;45(4):747-68.
2. López M, Hoppe B. History, epidemiology and regional diversities of urolithiasis. Pediatric nephrology. 2010 Jan;25:49-59.
3. Türk C, Knoll T, Petrik A, Sarica K, Straub M, Seitz C. Guidelines on urolithiasis. European association of urology. 2011 Mar 30.
4. Skolarikos A, Neisius A, Petřík A, Somani B, Thomas K, Gambaro G. Urolithiasis. InEAU guidelines. Edn. presented at the EAU Annual congress Amsterdam 2022.
5. Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, Knoll T. EAU guidelines on diagnosis and conservative management of urolithiasis. European urology. 2016 Mar 1;69(3):468-74.
6. Lulich JP, Osborne CA. Changing paradigms in the diagnosis of urolithiasis. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice. 2009 Jan 1;39(1):79-91.
7. Kwon JK, Chang IH, Moon YT, Lee JB, Park HJ, Park SB. Usefulness of low-dose nonenhanced computed tomography with iterative reconstruction for evaluation of urolithiasis: diagnostic performance and agreement between the urologist and the radiologist. Urology. 2015 Mar 1;85(3):531-8.
8. Worster A, Preyra I, Weaver B, Haines T. The accuracy of noncontrast helical computed tomography versus intravenous pyelography in the diagnosis of suspected acute urolithiasis: a meta-analysis. Annals of emergency medicine. 2002 Sep 1;40(3):280-6.
9. Avellino GJ, Bose S, Wang DS. Diagnosis and management of hematuria. Surgical Clinics. 2016 Jun 1;96(3):503-15.
10. El-Galley R, Abo-Kamil R, Burns JR, Phillips J, Kolettis PN. Practical use of investigations in patients with hematuria. Journal of endourology. 2008 Jan 1;22(1):51-6.
11. Mefford JM, Tungate RM, Amini L, Suh D, Anderson CL, Rudkin SE, Boysen-Osborn M. A comparison of urolithiasis in the presence and absence of microscopic hematuria in the emergency department. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2017 Jun;18(4):775.
12. Das M, Bardakci O, Yurtseven E, Akman C, Beyazit Y, Akdur O. Diagnostic Utility of Microhematuria in Renal Colic Patients in Emergency Medicine Correlation with Findings from Multidetector Computed Tomography. Med Sci Int J. 2019:1-5.