Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 371

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Low-Dose Versus Standard-Dose CT Protocol in Patients with Clinically Suspected Renal Colic

Open access
Poletti, Pierre-Alexandre, Platon, Alexandra, Rutschmann, Olivier T., Schmidlin, Franz R., Iselin, Christophe E., Becker, Christoph D.·2007·American Journal of Roentgenology

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2214/ajr.06.0793

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 371

Metadata

Authors
Poletti, P.-A., Platon, A., Rutschmann, O. T., Schmidlin, F. R., Iselin, C. E., & Becker, C. D.
Venue
American Journal of Roentgenology
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.