Renal ColicProspectiveNCT01352676
Limit Computed Tomography (CT) Scanning in Suspected Renal Colic
An observational study of Renal Colic and Flank Pain, run by Yale University at 2 sites in United States.
Trial summary
Computed tomography (CT) scanning is overused, expensive, and causes cancer. CT scan utilization in the U.S. has increased from an estimated 3 million CTs in 1980 to 62 million per year in 2007. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Renal Colic, Flank Pain, Back Pain
- How many people
- 635 participants
- Where
- 2 sitesUnited States
- Study dates
- May 2011to Mar 2014
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: The target population will be all patients aged 18 or above presenting to the Yale New Haven Hospital (YNHH) ED and Shoreline Medical Center (SMC) ED for whom a FPP CT scan is ordered by the treating physician for suspected renal colic. A total of 800-1000 patients will be enrolled over a 1.5 year period 6-2011 to 1-2013, matching the sex/race/ethnicity makeup of that found for the retrospective study. The population of the primary catchment area for YNHH is 350,000 and includes a diverse ethnic and cultural mix. Women and minorities are strongly represented in the population. Women represent approximately 51% of the ED population. The racial mix is approximately 50% White, not of Hispanic Origin; 33% Black, not of Hispanic Origin, 15% Hispanic; 1% Asian and 1% other. The ethnicity of SMC patients is mostly White and 54% female.
Who may be able to join
- Patients who present to the adult YNHH ED and Shoreline Medical Center SMC ED who are
- 18 years or older,
- renal colic is suspected upon presentation to the ED suggested by flank pain, back pain, abdominal pain, and/or hematuria, and
- the physician intends to order a CT FPP study for suspicion of a kidney stone. Members of all ethnic and racial groups are eligible.
Who cannot join
- Patients will be excluded for any one of the following reasons: patients that are
- pregnant
- prisoners
- unable or unwilling to consent (including non-English speaking) and
- with a history or physical evidence of recent trauma.
Trial locations and contacts
2 sites in 1 country.
United States2 sites
Shoreline Medical Center
Guilford, Connecticut, 06437
Yale University, Emergency Department
New Haven, Connecticut, 06519
About this study
Official title: Validation of a Decision Rule to Limit CT Scanning in Suspected Renal Colic
Computed tomography (CT) scanning is overused, expensive, and causes cancer. CT scan utilization in the U.S. has increased from an estimated 3 million CTs in 1980 to 62 million per year in 2007. From 2000 through 2006, Medicare spending on imaging more than doubled to $13.8 billion with advanced imaging such as CT scanning largely responsible. CT represents only 11% of radiologic examinations but is responsible for two-thirds of the ionizing radiation associated with medical imaging in the U.S. Recent estimates suggest that there will be 12.5 cancer deaths for every 10,000 CT scans. Renal colic is a common, non-life-threatening condition for which CT is overused. As many as 12% of people will have a kidney stone in their lifetime, and more than one million per year will present to the emergency department (ED). CT is now a first line test for renal colic, and is very accurate. However, 98% of kidney stones 5mm or smaller will pass spontaneously, and CT rarely alters management. A decision rule is needed to determine which patients with suspected renal colic require CT. While the signs and symptoms of renal colic have been shown to be predictable, no rule has yet been rigorously derived or validated to guide CT imaging in renal colic. A subset of patients with suspected renal colic may have a more serious diagnosis or a kidney stone that will require intervention; however the investigators maintain that clinical criteria, point of care ultrasound and plain radiography (when appropriate), will provide a more comparatively effective and safer approach by appropriately limiting imaging.
Read the detailed description
Study Aim: The specific aim of this study is to prospectively validate the previously derived decision rule for obtaining a Flank Pain Protocol (FPP) CT scan in suspected renal colic.
The investigators will integrate the derived clinical decision rule from the ongoing retrospective analysis with gestalt clinician pre-test probability, point of care ultrasound, and plain radiography (when appropriate) to prospectively and observationally test the rule at two distinct clinical settings. CT results and 90-day follow-up will be used to determine predefined outcomes.
Study Hypothesis: Prospective observational testing of a clinical decision rule, combined with point of care ultrasound and plain radiography when appropriate, will categorize >85% of patients who will require intervention, validating a decision rule to avoid unnecessary CT.
This amendment comes from recent evidence and work at our institution to develop an "ultra-low dose" CT scan protocol (ULDCT) with an effective radiation dose close to that of a plain film of the abdomen (KUB), or near 1mSv (compared to 8.5mSv in current practice). While we expect the ULDCT to be better than a KUB at localizing and characterizing kidney stones, what is unknown is how the loss in resolution with an ultra-low dose CT protocol might affect this localization and characterization of stones relative to a regular dose CT (current protocol), as well as the ability to find alternate diagnoses. Incorporating this additional imaging study in a subgroup of patients during the observational phase will allow us to determine test characteristics of the ULDCT that will allow incorporation into the prospective phase. This will hopefully provide excellent evidence about how to implement an ultra-low dose CT scan in practice, ultimately leading to a dramatic reduction in radiation exposure for a large number of patients at Yale and other sites.
We filed an amendment 11-15-2011. This amendment comes from recent evidence and work at our institution to develop an "ultra-low dose" CT scan protocol (ULDCT) with an effective radiation dose close to that of a plain film of the abdomen (KUB), or near 1mSv (compared to 8.5mSv in current practice). While we expect the ULDCT to be better than a KUB at localizing and characterizing kidney stones, what is unknown is how the loss in resolution with an ultra-low dose CT protocol might affect this localization and characterization of stones relative to a regular dose CT (current protocol), as well as the ability to find alternate diagnoses. Incorporating this additional imaging study in a subgroup of patients during the observational phase will allow us to determine test characteristics of the ULDCT that will allow incorporation into the prospective phase. This will hopefully provide excellent evidence about how to implement an ultra-low dose CT scan in practice, ultimately leading to a dramatic reduction in radiation exposure for a large number of patients at Yale and other sites.
This amendment comes from recent evidence and work at our institution to develop an "ultra-low dose" CT scan protocol (ULDCT) with an effective radiation dose close to that of a plain film of the abdomen (KUB), or near 1mSv (compared to 8.5mSv in current practice). While we expect the ULDCT to be better than a KUB at localizing and characterizing kidney stones, what is unknown is how the loss in resolution with an ultra-low dose CT protocol might affect this localization and characterization of stones relative to a regular dose CT (current protocol), as well as the ability to find alternate diagnoses. Incorporating this additional imaging study in a subgroup of patients during the observational phase will allow us to determine test characteristics of the ULDCT that will allow incorporation into the prospective phase. This will hopefully provide excellent evidence about how to implement an ultra-low dose CT scan in practice, ultimately leading to a dramatic reduction in radiation exposure for a large number of patients at Yale and other sites.
Future Direction: Ultimately the investigators intend to implement the validated decision rule at both study sites to evaluate further the feasibility, physician acceptance and comparative effectiveness of our rule. Using standard dissemination techniques and integration of the rule into the computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system at our institutions the investigators will determine the actual reduction in the number of FPP CT scans ordered, clinical outcomes based on 90-day follow up, survey of physician acceptance of the rule as well as an comparative effective analysis. The investigators will submit an application at a later date nearing the end of our projected enrollment for this study.
- Conditions
- Renal Colic, Flank Pain, Back Pain
- Keywords
- renal colic, flank pain, back pain
- Medical subject headings
- Renal Colic, Flank Pain, Back Pain
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Ultra Low Dose vs Regular CT Scans
both the CT results and the follow-up documentation will be reviewed by two separate MD observers who are blinded to both the predictor variables and the outcome of the decision rule. CT results will be categorized as defined above, and intervention as defined above will either be considered present (immediate or delayed) or absent based on follow-up documentation. In the case where there is a discrepancy in the categorization of CT or intervention, a third reviewer will be used as a tie-breaker, with discussion amongst all parties to reach a consensus if this is not clear.
Measured: Baseline-90 Days
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted12 May 2011 (estimated)
- Study startMay 2011
- Primary completionMar 2014
- Study completionMar 2014
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (16)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Renal ColicStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Yale UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 635 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Yale University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Christopher L Moore, MD, Principal investigator, Yale University School of Medicine, Emergency Medicine
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01352676
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 1104008278
- Other IDs
- HS018322
- Acronym
- Prospective
- Status last verified
- Mar 2020
- First submitted
- 10 May 2011
- Last updated
- 6 Mar 2020
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
Publications
Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 29;357(22):2277-84. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra072149. No abstract available.
PubMed 18046031Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, Berdon W. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Feb;176(2):289-96. doi: 10.2214/ajr.176.2.1760289.
PubMed 11159059Medicare Part B Imaging Services. General Accounting Office. Washington D.C., 2008.
Mettler FA Jr, Wiest PW, Locken JA, Kelsey CA. CT scanning: patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot. 2000 Dec;20(4):353-9. doi: 10.1088/0952-4746/20/4/301.
PubMed 11140709Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, Shepard JA, Saini S. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology. 2004 Mar;230(3):619-28. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2303021726. Epub 2004 Jan 22.
PubMed 14739312Jindal G, Ramchandani P. Acute flank pain secondary to urolithiasis: radiologic evaluation and alternate diagnoses. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007 May;45(3):395-410, vii. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2007.04.001.
PubMed 17601499Baumgarten DA, Francis IR, Bluth EI, Bush WH, Imaging EPoU. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® acute onset flank pain, suspicion of stone disease. American College of Radiology; 2007
Teichman JM. Clinical practice. Acute renal colic from ureteral calculus. N Engl J Med. 2004 Feb 12;350(7):684-93. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp030813. No abstract available.
PubMed 14960744Ripolles T, Errando J, Agramunt M, Martinez MJ. Ureteral colic: US versus CT. Abdom Imaging. 2004 Mar-Apr;29(2):263-6. doi: 10.1007/s00261-003-0098-7. No abstract available.
PubMed 15290956Catalano O, Nunziata A, Altei F, Siani A. Suspected ureteral colic: primary helical CT versus selective helical CT after unenhanced radiography and sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Feb;178(2):379-87. doi: 10.2214/ajr.178.2.1780379.
PubMed 11804898Gottlieb RH, La TC, Erturk EN, Sotack JL, Voci SL, Holloway RG, Syed L, Mikityansky I, Tirkes AT, Elmarzouky R, Zwemer FL, Joseph JV, Davis D, DiGrazio WJ, Messing EM. CT in detecting urinary tract calculi: influence on patient imaging and clinical outcomes. Radiology. 2002 Nov;225(2):441-9. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2252020101.
PubMed 12409578Ripolles T, Agramunt M, Errando J, Martinez MJ, Coronel B, Morales M. Suspected ureteral colic: plain film and sonography vs unenhanced helical CT. A prospective study in 66 patients. Eur Radiol. 2004 Jan;14(1):129-36. doi: 10.1007/s00330-003-1924-6. Epub 2003 Jun 19.
PubMed 12819916Broder J, Bowen J, Lohr J, Babcock A, Yoon J. Cumulative CT exposures in emergency department patients evaluated for suspected renal colic. J Emerg Med. 2007 Aug;33(2):161-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2006.12.035. Epub 2007 Jun 5.
PubMed 17692768Elton TJ, Roth CS, Berquist TH, Silverstein MD. A clinical prediction rule for the diagnosis of ureteral calculi in emergency departments. J Gen Intern Med. 1993 Feb;8(2):57-62. doi: 10.1007/BF02599984.
PubMed 8441076Moore CL, Bomann S, Daniels B, Luty S, Molinaro A, Singh D, Gross CP. Derivation and validation of a clinical prediction rule for uncomplicated ureteral stone--the STONE score: retrospective and prospective observational cohort studies. BMJ. 2014 Mar 26;348:g2191. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g2191.
PubMed 24671981
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 6 Mar 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Validation of a Decision Rule to Limit CT Scanning in Suspected Renal Colic
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01352676
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- Prospective / 1104008278
- Conditions
- Renal Colic, Flank Pain, Back Pain
- Keywords
- renal colic, flank pain, back pain
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 635 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Yale UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)
- Study start
- May 2011
- Primary completion
- Mar 2014 (actual)
- Study completion
- Mar 2014 (actual)
- First posted
- 12 May 2011 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Computed tomography (CT) scanning is overused, expensive, and causes cancer. CT scan utilization in the U.S. has increased from an estimated 3 million CTs in 1980 to 62 million per year in 2007. From 2000 through 2006, Medicare spending on imaging more than doubled to $13.8 billion with advanced imaging such as CT scanning largely responsible. CT represents only 11% of radiologic examinations but is responsible for two-thirds of the ionizing radiation associated with medical imaging in the U.S. Recent estimates suggest that there will be 12.5 cancer deaths for every 10,000 CT scans. Renal colic is a common, non-life-threatening condition for which CT is overused. As many as 12% of people will have a kidney stone in their lifetime, and more than one million per year will present to the emergency department (ED). CT is now a first line test for renal colic, and is very accurate. However, 98% of kidney stones 5mm or smaller will pass spontaneously, and CT rarely alters management. A decision rule is needed to determine which patients with suspected renal colic require CT. While the signs and symptoms of renal colic have been shown to be predictable, no rule has yet been rigorously derived or validated to guide CT imaging in renal colic. A subset of patients with suspected renal colic may have a more serious diagnosis or a kidney stone that will require intervention; however the investigators maintain that clinical criteria, point of care ultrasound and plain radiography (when appropriate), will provide a more comparatively effective and safer approach by appropriately limiting imaging.
Detailed description
Study Aim: The specific aim of this study is to prospectively validate the previously derived decision rule for obtaining a Flank Pain Protocol (FPP) CT scan in suspected renal colic.
The investigators will integrate the derived clinical decision rule from the ongoing retrospective analysis with gestalt clinician pre-test probability, point of care ultrasound, and plain radiography (when appropriate) to prospectively and observationally test the rule at two distinct clinical settings. CT results and 90-day follow-up will be used to determine predefined outcomes.
Study Hypothesis: Prospective observational testing of a clinical decision rule, combined with point of care ultrasound and plain radiography when appropriate, will categorize >85% of patients who will require intervention, validating a decision rule to avoid unnecessary CT.
This amendment comes from recent evidence and work at our institution to develop an "ultra-low dose" CT scan protocol (ULDCT) with an effective radiation dose close to that of a plain film of the abdomen (KUB), or near 1mSv (compared to 8.5mSv in current practice). While we expect the ULDCT to be better than a KUB at localizing and characterizing kidney stones, what is unknown is how the loss in resolution with an ultra-low dose CT protocol might affect this localization and characterization of stones relative to a regular dose CT (current protocol), as well as the ability to find alternate diagnoses. Incorporating this additional imaging study in a subgroup of patients during the observational phase will allow us to determine test characteristics of the ULDCT that will allow incorporation into the prospective phase. This will hopefully provide excellent evidence about how to implement an ultra-low dose CT scan in practice, ultimately leading to a dramatic reduction in radiation exposure for a large number of patients at Yale and other sites.
We filed an amendment 11-15-2011. This amendment comes from recent evidence and work at our institution to develop an "ultra-low dose" CT scan protocol (ULDCT) with an effective radiation dose close to that of a plain film of the abdomen (KUB), or near 1mSv (compared to 8.5mSv in current practice). While we expect the ULDCT to be better than a KUB at localizing and characterizing kidney stones, what is unknown is how the loss in resolution with an ultra-low dose CT protocol might affect this localization and characterization of stones relative to a regular dose CT (current protocol), as well as the ability to find alternate diagnoses. Incorporating this additional imaging study in a subgroup of patients during the observational phase will allow us to determine test characteristics of the ULDCT that will allow incorporation into the prospective phase. This will hopefully provide excellent evidence about how to implement an ultra-low dose CT scan in practice, ultimately leading to a dramatic reduction in radiation exposure for a large number of patients at Yale and other sites.
This amendment comes from recent evidence and work at our institution to develop an "ultra-low dose" CT scan protocol (ULDCT) with an effective radiation dose close to that of a plain film of the abdomen (KUB), or near 1mSv (compared to 8.5mSv in current practice). While we expect the ULDCT to be better than a KUB at localizing and characterizing kidney stones, what is unknown is how the loss in resolution with an ultra-low dose CT protocol might affect this localization and characterization of stones relative to a regular dose CT (current protocol), as well as the ability to find alternate diagnoses. Incorporating this additional imaging study in a subgroup of patients during the observational phase will allow us to determine test characteristics of the ULDCT that will allow incorporation into the prospective phase. This will hopefully provide excellent evidence about how to implement an ultra-low dose CT scan in practice, ultimately leading to a dramatic reduction in radiation exposure for a large number of patients at Yale and other sites.
Future Direction: Ultimately the investigators intend to implement the validated decision rule at both study sites to evaluate further the feasibility, physician acceptance and comparative effectiveness of our rule. Using standard dissemination techniques and integration of the rule into the computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system at our institutions the investigators will determine the actual reduction in the number of FPP CT scans ordered, clinical outcomes based on 90-day follow up, survey of physician acceptance of the rule as well as an comparative effective analysis. The investigators will submit an application at a later date nearing the end of our projected enrollment for this study.
Study design
- Observational model
- Cohort
- Time perspective
- Prospective
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- The target population will be all patients aged 18 or above presenting to the Yale New Haven Hospital (YNHH) ED and Shoreline Medical Center (SMC) ED for whom a FPP CT scan is ordered by the treating physician for suspected renal colic. A total of 800-1000 patients will be enrolled over a 1.5 year period 6-2011 to 1-2013, matching the sex/race/ethnicity makeup of that found for the retrospective study. The population of the primary catchment area for YNHH is 350,000 and includes a diverse ethnic and cultural mix. Women and minorities are strongly represented in the population. Women represent approximately 51% of the ED population. The racial mix is approximately 50% White, not of Hispanic Origin; 33% Black, not of Hispanic Origin, 15% Hispanic; 1% Asian and 1% other. The ethnicity of SMC patients is mostly White and 54% female.
Key inclusion criteria (4 listed)
- Patients who present to the adult YNHH ED and Shoreline Medical Center SMC ED who are
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Patients will be excluded for any one of the following reasons: patients that are
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Primary outcome
Ultra Low Dose vs Regular CT Scans
Time frame: Baseline-90 Days
both the CT results and the follow-up documentation will be reviewed by two separate MD observers who are blinded to both the predictor variables and the outcome of the decision rule. CT results will be categorized as defined above, and intervention as defined above will either be considered present (immediate or delayed) or absent based on follow-up documentation. In the case where there is a discrepancy in the categorization of CT or intervention, a third reviewer will be used as a tie-breaker, with discussion amongst all parties to reach a consensus if this is not clear.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 6 Mar 2020.
- Background: PubMed 18046031Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 29;357(22):2277-84. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra072149. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 11159059Brenner D, Elliston C, Hall E, Berdon W. Estimated risks of radiation-induced fatal cancer from pediatric CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2001 Feb;176(2):289-96. doi: 10.2214/ajr.176.2.1760289.
- BackgroundMedicare Part B Imaging Services. General Accounting Office. Washington D.C., 2008.
- Background: PubMed 11140709Mettler FA Jr, Wiest PW, Locken JA, Kelsey CA. CT scanning: patterns of use and dose. J Radiol Prot. 2000 Dec;20(4):353-9. doi: 10.1088/0952-4746/20/4/301.
- Background: PubMed 14739312Kalra MK, Maher MM, Toth TL, Hamberg LM, Blake MA, Shepard JA, Saini S. Strategies for CT radiation dose optimization. Radiology. 2004 Mar;230(3):619-28. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2303021726. Epub 2004 Jan 22.
- Background: PubMed 17601499Jindal G, Ramchandani P. Acute flank pain secondary to urolithiasis: radiologic evaluation and alternate diagnoses. Radiol Clin North Am. 2007 May;45(3):395-410, vii. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2007.04.001.
- BackgroundBaumgarten DA, Francis IR, Bluth EI, Bush WH, Imaging EPoU. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® acute onset flank pain, suspicion of stone disease. American College of Radiology; 2007
- Background: PubMed 14960744Teichman JM. Clinical practice. Acute renal colic from ureteral calculus. N Engl J Med. 2004 Feb 12;350(7):684-93. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp030813. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 15290956Ripolles T, Errando J, Agramunt M, Martinez MJ. Ureteral colic: US versus CT. Abdom Imaging. 2004 Mar-Apr;29(2):263-6. doi: 10.1007/s00261-003-0098-7. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 11804898Catalano O, Nunziata A, Altei F, Siani A. Suspected ureteral colic: primary helical CT versus selective helical CT after unenhanced radiography and sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002 Feb;178(2):379-87. doi: 10.2214/ajr.178.2.1780379.
- Background: PubMed 12409578Gottlieb RH, La TC, Erturk EN, Sotack JL, Voci SL, Holloway RG, Syed L, Mikityansky I, Tirkes AT, Elmarzouky R, Zwemer FL, Joseph JV, Davis D, DiGrazio WJ, Messing EM. CT in detecting urinary tract calculi: influence on patient imaging and clinical outcomes. Radiology. 2002 Nov;225(2):441-9. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2252020101.
- Background: PubMed 12819916Ripolles T, Agramunt M, Errando J, Martinez MJ, Coronel B, Morales M. Suspected ureteral colic: plain film and sonography vs unenhanced helical CT. A prospective study in 66 patients. Eur Radiol. 2004 Jan;14(1):129-36. doi: 10.1007/s00330-003-1924-6. Epub 2003 Jun 19.
Related trials for Renal Colic
Not yet recruitingPhase 3
Comparative Efficacy of IV Dexamethasone vs. Nebulized Terbutaline for Renal Colic Pain in the ED
Renal Colic
Not yet recruiting
Relief Efficacy of Lidocaine Versus Morphine for Acute Renal Colic in the Emergency Department
Renal Colic, Kidney Stones, Urolithiasis, Hypocitraturia
Recruiting
Ear Pressure Points Plus Pain Meds for Faster Kidney Stone Pain Relief
Renal Colic, Acupuncture, Ear
Active, not recruiting
Sterile Water Injection vs Morphine for Renal Colic
Renal Colic, Urolithiasis
Not yet recruitingPhase 4
Analgesic Efficacy of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation and Dexketoprofen in Renal Colic
Renal Colic
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Christopher L Moore, MD principal investigator
Yale University School of Medicine, Emergency Medicine
2 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Renal Colic and Flank Pain, run by Yale University at 2 sites in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 4 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 6 Mar 2020. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 2 sites in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Ultra Low Dose vs Regular CT Scans (time frame: Baseline-90 Days). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01352676, which also lists 16 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 6 Mar 2020.