Patient Reported Outcomes Predicting Spontaneous Stone Passage May Not Have Acceptable Accuracy.


Journal

The Journal of urology
ISSN: 1527-3792
Titre abrégé: J Urol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0376374

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Sep 2020
Historique:
pubmed: 10 4 2020
medline: 22 10 2020
entrez: 10 4 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

We assessed the accuracy of patient reported outcomes for predicting spontaneous ureteral stone passage. Patients with new unilateral ureteral calculi were prospectively assessed regarding current symptoms and whether they believed their stone had passed. The primary outcome was successful spontaneous stone passage as confirmed by ultrasound, and kidney, ureter and bladder x-ray. Spontaneous stone passage was compared to patient reported outcome responses to assess accuracy. Of the 212 patients 105 (49.5%) had successful spontaneous stone passage at a mean followup of 17.6 days. Compared to the unsuccessful spontaneous stone passage group, those with successful spontaneous stone passage had significantly smaller (mean 5.4 vs 7.6 mm), more distal (71.4% vs 34.6%) stones with slightly longer average time to followup at first visit (19.2 vs 16.0 days). Additionally, there was more patient reported cessation of pain (77.1% vs 44.9%) and perceived stone passage (55.2% vs 13.1%) in this group. Cessation of pain was 79.7% (95% CI 67.1-89.0) sensitive and 55.8% (95% CI 44.0-67.1) specific for successful spontaneous stone passage. Likewise, patient reported stone passage was 59.3% (95% CI 45.7-71.9) sensitive and 87.0% (95% CI 77.4-93.5%) specific. In the multivariable logistic regression analysis cessation of pain (OR 4.02, 95% CI 1.91-8.47, p <0.01) and reported stone passage (OR 3.79, 95% CI 1.73-8.28, p <0.01) were independent predictors of successful spontaneous stone passage. Cessation of pain and patient reported stone passage are independent predictors of successful spontaneous stone passage. However, both assessments may incorrectly gauge spontaneous stone passage, which raises concern for their validity as a sole clinical end point.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32271691
doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001030
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

524-530

Commentaires et corrections

Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn

Auteurs

Ryan McLarty (R)

Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Mark Assmus (M)

Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Ambikaipakan Senthilselvan (A)

School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Trevor Schuler (T)

Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Timothy Wollin (T)

Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Shubha De (S)

Division of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH