We have located links that may give you full text access.
Consensus Development Conference
Journal Article
Review
Evaluation and management of renal injuries: consensus statement of the renal trauma subcommittee.
BJU International 2004 May
OBJECTIVE: To determine the optimal evaluation and management of renal injuries by review of the world's English-language literature on the subject.
METHODS: A consensus conference convened by the World Health Organization and the Societé Internationale d'Urologie met to critically review reports of the diagnosis and treatment of renal trauma. The English-language literature about renal trauma was identified using Medline, and additional cited works not detected in the initial search obtained. Evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of renal trauma were made with reference to a five-point scale.
RESULTS: There were many Level 3 and 4 citations, few Level 2, and one Level 1 which supported clinical practice patterns. Findings of nearly 200 reviewed citations are summarized.
CONCLUSIONS: Published reports on renal trauma still rely heavily on expert opinion and single-institution retrospective case series. Prospective trials of the most significant issues, when possible, might improve the quality of evidence that dictates the behaviour of practitioners.
METHODS: A consensus conference convened by the World Health Organization and the Societé Internationale d'Urologie met to critically review reports of the diagnosis and treatment of renal trauma. The English-language literature about renal trauma was identified using Medline, and additional cited works not detected in the initial search obtained. Evidence-based recommendations for the diagnosis and management of renal trauma were made with reference to a five-point scale.
RESULTS: There were many Level 3 and 4 citations, few Level 2, and one Level 1 which supported clinical practice patterns. Findings of nearly 200 reviewed citations are summarized.
CONCLUSIONS: Published reports on renal trauma still rely heavily on expert opinion and single-institution retrospective case series. Prospective trials of the most significant issues, when possible, might improve the quality of evidence that dictates the behaviour of practitioners.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app