Clinical Effectiveness of Prospectively Reported Sonographic Twinkling Artifact for the Diagnosis of Renal Calculus in Patients Without Known Urolithiasis. Masch, W. R., Cohan, R. H., Ellis, J. H., Dillman, J. R., Rubin, J. M., & Davenport, M. S. American Journal of Roentgenology, 206(2):326--331, January, 2016.
Clinical Effectiveness of Prospectively Reported Sonographic Twinkling Artifact for the Diagnosis of Renal Calculus in Patients Without Known Urolithiasis [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
Choose Top of pageABSTRACT \textless\textlessMaterials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical effectiveness of prospectively reported sonographic twinkling artifact for the diagnosis of renal calculus in patients without known urolithiasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS. All ultrasound reports finalized in one health system from June 15, 2011, to June 14, 2014, that contained the words “twinkle” or “twinkling” in reference to suspected renal calculus were identified. Patients with known urolithiasis or lack of a suitable reference standard (unenhanced abdominal CT with ≤ 2.5-mm slice thickness performed ≤ 30 days after ultrasound) were excluded. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratio of sonographic twinkling artifact for the diagnosis of renal calculus were calculated by renal unit and stratified by two additional diagnostic features for calcification (echogenic focus, posterior acoustic shadowing). RESULTS. Eighty-five patients formed the study population. Isolated sonographic twinkling artifact had sensitivity of 0.78 (82/105), specificity of 0.40 (26/65), and a positive likelihood ratio of 1.30 for the diagnosis of renal calculus. Specificity and positive likelihood ratio improved and sensitivity declined when the following additional diagnostic features were present: sonographic twinkling artifact and echogenic focus (sensitivity, 0.61 [64/105]; specificity, 0.65 [42/65]; positive likelihood ratio, 1.72); sonographic twinkling artifact and posterior acoustic shadowing (sensitivity, 0.31 [33/105]; specificity, 0.95 [62/65]; positive likelihood ratio, 6.81); all three features (sensitivity, 0.31 [33/105]; specificity, 0.95 [62/65]; positive likelihood ratio, 6.81). CONCLUSION. Isolated sonographic twinkling artifact has a high false-positive rate (60%) for the diagnosis of renal calculus in patients without known urolithiasis.
@article{masch_clinical_2016,
	title = {Clinical {Effectiveness} of {Prospectively} {Reported} {Sonographic} {Twinkling} {Artifact} for the {Diagnosis} of {Renal} {Calculus} in {Patients} {Without} {Known} {Urolithiasis}},
	volume = {206},
	issn = {0361-803X},
	url = {http://proxy.library.upenn.edu:2808/doi/full/10.2214/AJR.15.14998},
	doi = {10.2214/AJR.15.14998},
	abstract = {Choose
                    Top of pageABSTRACT {\textless}{\textless}Materials and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to determine the clinical effectiveness of prospectively reported sonographic twinkling artifact for the diagnosis of renal calculus in patients without known urolithiasis. MATERIALS AND METHODS. All ultrasound reports finalized in one health system from June 15, 2011, to June 14, 2014, that contained the words “twinkle” or “twinkling” in reference to suspected renal calculus were identified. Patients with known urolithiasis or lack of a suitable reference standard (unenhanced abdominal CT with ≤ 2.5-mm slice thickness performed ≤ 30 days after ultrasound) were excluded. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratio of sonographic twinkling artifact for the diagnosis of renal calculus were calculated by renal unit and stratified by two additional diagnostic features for calcification (echogenic focus, posterior acoustic shadowing). RESULTS. Eighty-five patients formed the study population. Isolated sonographic twinkling artifact had sensitivity of 0.78 (82/105), specificity of 0.40 (26/65), and a positive likelihood ratio of 1.30 for the diagnosis of renal calculus. Specificity and positive likelihood ratio improved and sensitivity declined when the following additional diagnostic features were present: sonographic twinkling artifact and echogenic focus (sensitivity, 0.61 [64/105]; specificity, 0.65 [42/65]; positive likelihood ratio, 1.72); sonographic twinkling artifact and posterior acoustic shadowing (sensitivity, 0.31 [33/105]; specificity, 0.95 [62/65]; positive likelihood ratio, 6.81); all three features (sensitivity, 0.31 [33/105]; specificity, 0.95 [62/65]; positive likelihood ratio, 6.81). CONCLUSION. Isolated sonographic twinkling artifact has a high false-positive rate (60\%) for the diagnosis of renal calculus in patients without known urolithiasis.},
	number = {2},
	urldate = {2016-01-22TZ},
	journal = {American Journal of Roentgenology},
	author = {Masch, William R. and Cohan, Richard H. and Ellis, James H. and Dillman, Jonathan R. and Rubin, Jonathan M. and Davenport, Matthew S.},
	month = jan,
	year = {2016},
	keywords = {Urolithiasis, artifact, calculus, false-positive, twinkling},
	pages = {326--331}
}
Downloads: 0