title: Should low-dose computed tomography kidneys, ureter and bladder be the new investigation of choice in suspected renal colic?: A systematic review.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Computed tomography kidneys, ureter and bladder (CTKUB) is the accepted gold standard investigation for suspected renal colic. Dose considerations are particularly pertinent in the context of detecting urolithiasis given the high risk of disease recurrence, which can necessitate multiple radiological examinations over the lifetime of a stone-former. We performed a systematic review of the literature to see whether there was any evidence that reducing the effective radiation dose of a CTKUB compromised the diagnostic accuracy of the scan.
  
  
  METHODS
  Relevant databases including MedLine, EMBASE, DARE and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2012. All English language articles reporting on prospective studies where non-contrast, low-dose CT (LDCT) was used to investigate adults (males and non-pregnant females) presenting with flank pain or suspected urolithiasis were included. LDCT was defined as an effective radiation dose <3 mSv per examination.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Our initial search identified 497 records. After removing duplicates, 390 abstracts were screened, of which 375 were excluded, principally because outcomes of interest were not presented. Six papers remained for the final analysis, reporting on a total of 903 patients. Individual studies showed a prevalence of urolithiasis ranging between 36% and 88%, with additional pathologies found in 5-16%. The effective radiation dose of the LDCT techniques used ranged from 0.5 to 2.8 mSv. The sensitivity of LDCT for diagnosing stone disease was 90-97% with a specificity of 86-100%.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The sensitivity and specificity of CTKUB for diagnosing urolithiasis remains high, even when the effective radiation dose is lowered. LDCT may miss some small stones (<3 mm), especially in obese patients (>30 kg/m(2)), but in this group LDCT still identifies most alternative diagnoses. With at least one level 1A and two level 1B studies supporting the use of LDCT, there is Grade A recommendation for its use as the first-line investigation in suspected renal colic in non-obese patients.
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
authors.forename: Tamsin
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Drake
authors.affiliation: Department of Emergency, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool BC NSW 1871, Australia.
authors.forename: Nitin
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Jain
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
authors.forename: Timothy
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Bryant
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
authors.forename: Iain
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Wilson
authors.affiliation: Department of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
authors.forename: Bhaskar K
authors.initials: BK
authors.lastname: Somani
keywords: Computed tomography of the renal tract; low-dose computed tomography; renal colic; renal stones; urolithiasis
references.citation: BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2700
references.pmid: 19622552
references.citation: Urol Res. 2005 May;33(2):99-104
references.pmid: 15645229
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1999 Jun;172(6):1491-4
references.pmid: 10350278
references.citation: Radiology. 2005 Aug;236(2):565-71
references.pmid: 16040914
references.citation: J Urol. 1999 Jul;162(1):27-30
references.pmid: 10379732
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Apr;188(4):927-33
references.pmid: 17377025
references.citation: Radiology. 1995 Mar;194(3):789-94
references.pmid: 7862980
references.citation: J Urol. 2009 Feb;181(2):668-72; discussion 673
references.pmid: 19100573
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003 Feb;180(2):305-11
references.pmid: 12540420
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008 Aug;191(2):396-401
references.pmid: 18647908
references.citation: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003 Nov 10;3:25
references.pmid: 14606960
references.citation: J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2006 Jan-Feb;30(1):44-50
references.pmid: 16365571
references.citation: Urology. 2002 Jun;59(6):839-42
references.pmid: 12031364
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 May;178(5):1058-62
references.pmid: 11959701
references.citation: J Urol. 2002 Apr;167(4):1687-91
references.pmid: 11912388
references.citation: J Endourol. 2000 Aug;14(6):471-4
references.pmid: 10954300
references.citation: Radiology. 1997 Jul;204(1):27-31
references.pmid: 9205218
references.citation: Eur Radiol. 2005 Sep;15(9):1898-905
references.pmid: 15806366
references.citation: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007 Feb;188(2):553-62
references.pmid: 17242268
references.citation: Radiology. 1997 Oct;205(1):43-5
references.pmid: 9314959
references.citation: Radiology. 2000 Dec;217(3):792-7
references.pmid: 11110945
references.citation: Eur Urol. 2007 Dec;52(6):1610-31
references.pmid: 18074433
references.citation: J Urol. 2002 Dec;168(6):2457-60
references.pmid: 12441939
references.citation: Acta Radiol. 2005 Nov;46(7):756-63
references.pmid: 16372698
references.citation: J Urol. 2012 Jul;188(1):124-9
references.pmid: 22578728
references.citation: Urology. 1998 Dec;52(6):982-7
references.pmid: 9836541