The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Low-Dose Versus Standard-Dose CT Protocol in Patients with Clinically Suspected Renal Colic
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to compare a low-dose abdominal CT protocol, delivering a dose of radiation close to the dose delivered by abdominal radiography, with standard-dose unenhanced CT in patients with suspected renal colic. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred twenty-five patients (87 men, 38 women; mean age, 45 years) who were admitted with suspected renal colic underwent both abdominal low-dose CT (30 mAs) and standard-dose CT (180 mAs). Low-dose CT and standard-dose CT were independently reviewed, in a delayed fashion, by two radiologists for the characterization of renal and ureteral calculi (location, size) and for indirect signs of renal colic (renal enlargement, pyeloureteral dilatation, periureteral or renal stranding). Results reported for low-dose CT, with regard to the patients' body mass indexes (BMIs), were compared with those obtained with standard-dose CT (reference standard). The presence of non-urinary tract-related disorders was also assessed. Informed consent was obtained from all patients. RESULTS: In patients with a BMI < 30, low-dose CT achieved 96% sensitivity and 100% specificity for the detection of indirect signs of renal colic and a sensitivity of 95% and a specificity of 97% for detecting ureteral calculi. In patients with a BMI < 30, low-dose CT was 86% sensitive for detecting ureteral calculi < 3 mm and 100% sensitive for detecting calculi > 3 mm. Low-dose CT was 100% sensitive and specific for depicting non-urinary tract-related disorders (n = 6). CONCLUSION: Low-dose CT achieves sensitivities and specificities close to those of standard-dose CT in assessing the diagnosis of renal colic, depicting ureteral calculi > 3 mm in patients with a BMI < 30, and correctly identifying alternative diagnoses.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Assimos, D., Krambeck, A., Miller, N. L., Monga, M., Murad, M. H., Nelson, C. P., Pace, K. T., Pais, V. M., Pearle, M. S., Preminger, G. M., et al. (2016) · Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090 · Cited by 1,457
Moore, C. L., Bomann, S., Daniels, B., Luty, S., Molinaro, A., Singh, D., & Gross, C. P. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g2191 · Cited by 157
Metadata
- Authors
- Poletti, P.-A., Platon, A., Rutschmann, O. T., Schmidlin, F. R., Iselin, C. E., & Becker, C. D.
- Venue
- American Journal of Roentgenology
- Publisher
- American Roentgen Ray Society
- Published
- 2007-04
- Volume
- 188
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 927-933
- ISSN
- 0002-9580 (ISSN-L)
- 0361-803X
- 1546-3141
- OpenAlex
- W1987844103
- Cited by
- 371
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 13.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Low-Dose Versus Standard-Dose CT Protocol in Patients with Clinically Suspected Renal Colic. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2214/ajr.06.0793
- The paper
- Poletti, P.-A., Platon, A., Rutschmann, O. T., Schmidlin, F. R., Iselin, C. E., & Becker, C. D. (2007). Low-Dose Versus Standard-Dose CT Protocol in Patients with Clinically Suspected Renal Colic. American Journal of Roentgenology. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.06.0793
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.