2003
DOI: 10.1056/nejmcp012694
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Microscopic Hematuria

Abstract: The new england journal of medicine n engl j med 348;23 www.nejm.org june 5, 2003 2330This Journal feature begins with a case vignette highlighting a common clinical problem. Evidence supporting various strategies is then presented, followed by a review of formal guidelines, when they exist. The article ends with the authors' clinical recommendations.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
74
0
11

Year Published

2004
2004
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 222 publications
(87 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
(28 reference statements)
2
74
0
11
Order By: Relevance
“…reported that urine microscopy was often second only to renal biopsy in making a diagnosis. Other guidelines also stress the role of urinary sediment as a discriminating diagnostic instrument in patients with hematuria29, 30, 31, 32.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…reported that urine microscopy was often second only to renal biopsy in making a diagnosis. Other guidelines also stress the role of urinary sediment as a discriminating diagnostic instrument in patients with hematuria29, 30, 31, 32.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In gynecologic section, it was demonstrated that hematuria can be used as a screening test to detect urinary bladder mucosal infiltration of cervical cancer (Chuttiangtum et al, 2012). It has been reported that Urological cancer is found in approximately 5% of the patients presenting with microscopic hematuria, and in around 20% of the patients with gross hematuria (Khadra et al, 2000;Cohen and Brown, 2003). Therefore, screening for bladder cancer may have different performance characteristics in selected high-risk populations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A GP may currently have difficulty justifying a failure to refer urgently a 60-year-old male with a single prostatespecific antigen (PSA) of 6 (yet 10% of males aged 50-70 years have a raised PSA), or microscopic haematuria in a 60-year-old female (yet reported prevalence rates are up to 16.1% 8 ). The litigation bill for the NHS for delayed diagnosis of cancer is significant, and better data should help to make guidelines more robust and justifiable.…”
Section: 3mentioning
confidence: 99%