Accuracy of ultrasound versus computed tomography urogram in detecting urinary tract calculi

Salinawati Bakin, Wong Erica Yee Hing, Xeng Inn Fam, Zulfiqar Mohd Annuar

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Aim: To determine the (i) sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound (USG) in the detection of urinary tract calculi, (ii) size of renal calculi detected on USG, and (iii) size of renal calculi not seen on USG but detected on computed tomography urogram (CTU). Methods: A total of 201 patients’ USG and CTU were compared retrospectively for the presence of calculi. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of USG were calculated with CTU as the gold standard. Results: From the 201 sets of data collected, 59 calculi were detected on both USG and CTU. The sensitivity and specificity of renal calculi detection on USG were 53% and 85% respectively. The mean size of the renal calculus detected on USG was 7.6 mm ± 4.1 mm and the mean size of the renal calculus not visualised on USG but detected on CTU was 4 mm ± 2.4 mm. The sensitivity and specificity of ureteric calculi detection on USG were 12% and 97% respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of urinary bladder calculi detection on USG were 20% and 100% respectively. Conclusion: This study showed that the accuracy of US in detecting renal, ureteric and urinary bladder calculi were 67%, 80% and 98% respectively.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)238-242
Number of pages5
JournalMedical Journal of Malaysia
Volume70
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 1 Aug 2015

Fingerprint

Urinary Calculi
Kidney Calculi
Urography
Urinary Tract
Tomography
Calculi
Sensitivity and Specificity
Urinary Bladder Calculi
Kidney

Keywords

  • Computed tomography urogram
  • Nephrolithiasis
  • Ultrasound
  • Urinary tract calculi
  • Urolithiasis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Accuracy of ultrasound versus computed tomography urogram in detecting urinary tract calculi. / Bakin, Salinawati; Erica Yee Hing, Wong; Fam, Xeng Inn; Annuar, Zulfiqar Mohd.

In: Medical Journal of Malaysia, Vol. 70, No. 4, 01.08.2015, p. 238-242.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{14cdbebe1dcd43ada9c6e432daace407,
title = "Accuracy of ultrasound versus computed tomography urogram in detecting urinary tract calculi",
abstract = "Aim: To determine the (i) sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound (USG) in the detection of urinary tract calculi, (ii) size of renal calculi detected on USG, and (iii) size of renal calculi not seen on USG but detected on computed tomography urogram (CTU). Methods: A total of 201 patients’ USG and CTU were compared retrospectively for the presence of calculi. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of USG were calculated with CTU as the gold standard. Results: From the 201 sets of data collected, 59 calculi were detected on both USG and CTU. The sensitivity and specificity of renal calculi detection on USG were 53{\%} and 85{\%} respectively. The mean size of the renal calculus detected on USG was 7.6 mm ± 4.1 mm and the mean size of the renal calculus not visualised on USG but detected on CTU was 4 mm ± 2.4 mm. The sensitivity and specificity of ureteric calculi detection on USG were 12{\%} and 97{\%} respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of urinary bladder calculi detection on USG were 20{\%} and 100{\%} respectively. Conclusion: This study showed that the accuracy of US in detecting renal, ureteric and urinary bladder calculi were 67{\%}, 80{\%} and 98{\%} respectively.",
keywords = "Computed tomography urogram, Nephrolithiasis, Ultrasound, Urinary tract calculi, Urolithiasis",
author = "Salinawati Bakin and {Erica Yee Hing}, Wong and Fam, {Xeng Inn} and Annuar, {Zulfiqar Mohd}",
year = "2015",
month = "8",
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "70",
pages = "238--242",
journal = "Medical Journal of Malaysia",
issn = "0300-5283",
publisher = "Malaysian Medical Association",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Accuracy of ultrasound versus computed tomography urogram in detecting urinary tract calculi

AU - Bakin, Salinawati

AU - Erica Yee Hing, Wong

AU - Fam, Xeng Inn

AU - Annuar, Zulfiqar Mohd

PY - 2015/8/1

Y1 - 2015/8/1

N2 - Aim: To determine the (i) sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound (USG) in the detection of urinary tract calculi, (ii) size of renal calculi detected on USG, and (iii) size of renal calculi not seen on USG but detected on computed tomography urogram (CTU). Methods: A total of 201 patients’ USG and CTU were compared retrospectively for the presence of calculi. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of USG were calculated with CTU as the gold standard. Results: From the 201 sets of data collected, 59 calculi were detected on both USG and CTU. The sensitivity and specificity of renal calculi detection on USG were 53% and 85% respectively. The mean size of the renal calculus detected on USG was 7.6 mm ± 4.1 mm and the mean size of the renal calculus not visualised on USG but detected on CTU was 4 mm ± 2.4 mm. The sensitivity and specificity of ureteric calculi detection on USG were 12% and 97% respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of urinary bladder calculi detection on USG were 20% and 100% respectively. Conclusion: This study showed that the accuracy of US in detecting renal, ureteric and urinary bladder calculi were 67%, 80% and 98% respectively.

AB - Aim: To determine the (i) sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound (USG) in the detection of urinary tract calculi, (ii) size of renal calculi detected on USG, and (iii) size of renal calculi not seen on USG but detected on computed tomography urogram (CTU). Methods: A total of 201 patients’ USG and CTU were compared retrospectively for the presence of calculi. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of USG were calculated with CTU as the gold standard. Results: From the 201 sets of data collected, 59 calculi were detected on both USG and CTU. The sensitivity and specificity of renal calculi detection on USG were 53% and 85% respectively. The mean size of the renal calculus detected on USG was 7.6 mm ± 4.1 mm and the mean size of the renal calculus not visualised on USG but detected on CTU was 4 mm ± 2.4 mm. The sensitivity and specificity of ureteric calculi detection on USG were 12% and 97% respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of urinary bladder calculi detection on USG were 20% and 100% respectively. Conclusion: This study showed that the accuracy of US in detecting renal, ureteric and urinary bladder calculi were 67%, 80% and 98% respectively.

KW - Computed tomography urogram

KW - Nephrolithiasis

KW - Ultrasound

KW - Urinary tract calculi

KW - Urolithiasis

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84941084481&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84941084481&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 70

SP - 238

EP - 242

JO - Medical Journal of Malaysia

JF - Medical Journal of Malaysia

SN - 0300-5283

IS - 4

ER -