Main Article Content
Aim: This study aims to evaluate the interpretation accuracy of urology trainees in reporting computed tomography of the kidneys, ureters, and bladder (CT-KUB) compared with the formal radiology reports in
patients with suspected acute nephrolithiasis.
Methods: A sample of 12 consecutive CT-KUB scans for suspected acute nephrolithiasis was prospectively compiled and displayed using a software PACS viewer. 11 urology trainees, with an average of 24 months of urology specialist training, interpreted each scan. A total of 132 urology trainees’ reports were compared to the formal radiology reports for agreement in detecting key findings (presence or absence of stone disease), signs of urinary tract obstruction, clinically significant findings, and clinically non-significant findings.
Results: There was a high level of agreement between urology trainees and radiologists for detecting key findings (98.4%) and clinically significant abnormalities (72.7%). There was less agreement in detecting all signs of urinary tract obstruction (56.2%) and non-clinically significant findings (36.8%).
Conclusion: This study shows that urology trainees can accurately report CT KUB studies for key findings and clinically significant abnormalities. This may improve ongoing acute management and early patient discharge. However, their findings should be verified against formal radiological reports.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright of articles published in all DPG titles is retained by the author(s). The author(s) grants DPG the rights to publish the article and identify itself as the original publisher. The author grants DPG exclusive commercial rights to the article. The author grants any party the rights to use the article freely for non-commercial purposes provided that the original work is properly cited.
2. Kartha G, Calle JC, Marchini GS, Monga M. Impact of stone disease: chronic kidney disease and quality of life. Urol Clin North Am 2013 Feb;40(1):135–47. doi:10.1016/j.ucl.2012.09.004. Epub 2012 Oct 23. PMID: 23177641.
3. Vieweg J, Teh C, Freed K, Leder RA, Smith RH, Nelson RH, Preminger GM. Unenhanced helical computerized tomography for the evaluation of patients with acute flank pain. J Urol 1998 Sep;160(3 Pt 1):679–84. doi:10.1097/00005392-199809010-00010. PMID: 9720520.
4. Rahman El Bakry RA. Prospective comparative study between un-enhanced multidetector computed tomography and ultrasonography in evaluation of acute renal colic, Alexandria J Med 2017;53:4, 367–71, DOI:10.1016/j.ajme.2017.01.001
5. Portis AJ, Sundaram CP. Diagnosis and initial management of kidney stones. Am Fam Physician 2001 Apr 1;63(7):1329–38. PMID: 11310648.
6. Smith RC, Verga M, McCarthy S, Rosenfield AT. Diagnosis of acute flank pain: value of unenhanced helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996 Jan;166(1):97–101. doi:10.2214/ajr.166.1.8571915. PMID: 8571915.
7. Rafi M, Shetty A, Gunja N. Accuracy of computed tomography of the kidneys, ureters and bladder interpretation by emergency physicians. Emerg Med Australas 2013 Oct;25(5):422–6. doi:10.1111/1742-6723.12117. Epub 2013 Sep 9. PMID: 24099370.
8. Gallagher FA, Tay KY, Vowler SL, Szutowicz H, Cross JJ, McAuley DJ, Antoun NM. Comparing the accuracy of initial head CT reporting by radiologists, radiology trainees, neuroradiographers and emergency doctors. Br J Radiol 2011 Nov;84(1007):1040–5. doi:10.1259/bjr/24581602. PMID: 22011832; PMCID: PMC3473712.
9. Hong JY, Lee DH, Chang IH, Park SB, Kim CW, Chi BH. Inter-observer agreement between urologists and radiologists in interpreting the computed tomography images of emergency patients with renal colic. Urol J 2018 Mar 18;15(2):6–9. doi:10.22037/uj.v0i0.3906. PMID: 29353466.