Guideline of guidelines

Asymptomatic microscopic haematuria

Brian J. Linder, Edward J. Bass, Hugh Mostafid, Stephen A. Boorjian

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to review major organizational guidelines on the evaluation and management of asymptomatic microscopic haematuria (AMH). We reviewed the haematuria guidelines from: the American Urological Association; the consensus statement by the Canadian Urological Association, Canadian Urologic Oncology Group and Bladder Cancer Canada; the American College of Physicians; the Joint Consensus Statement of the Renal Association and British Association of Urological Surgeons; and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. All guidelines reviewed recommend evaluation for AMH in the absence of potential benign aetiologies, with the evaluation including cystoscopy and upper urinary tract imaging. Existing guidelines vary in their definition of AMH (role of urine dipstick vs urine microscopy), the age threshold for recommending evaluation, and the optimal imaging method (computed tomography vs ultrasonography). Of the reviewed guidelines, none recommended the use of urine cytology or urine markers during the initial AMH evaluation. Patients should have ongoing follow-up after a negative initial AMH evaluation. Significant variation exists among current guidelines for AMH with respect to who should be evaluated and in what manner. Given the patient and health system implications of balancing appropriately focused and effective diagnostic evaluation, AMH represents a valuable future research opportunity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalBJU International
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2017

Fingerprint

Hematuria
Guidelines
Urine
Cystoscopy
National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
Urinary Tract
Urinary Bladder Neoplasms
Canada
Cell Biology
Microscopy
Ultrasonography
Joints
Tomography
Delivery of Health Care
Physicians
Health

Keywords

  • Guidelines
  • Haematuria
  • International
  • Microscopic haematuria
  • Review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Linder, B. J., Bass, E. J., Mostafid, H., & Boorjian, S. A. (Accepted/In press). Guideline of guidelines: Asymptomatic microscopic haematuria. BJU International. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.14016

Guideline of guidelines : Asymptomatic microscopic haematuria. / Linder, Brian J.; Bass, Edward J.; Mostafid, Hugh; Boorjian, Stephen A.

In: BJU International, 2017.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Linder, Brian J. ; Bass, Edward J. ; Mostafid, Hugh ; Boorjian, Stephen A. / Guideline of guidelines : Asymptomatic microscopic haematuria. In: BJU International. 2017.
@article{94c1efcfe6204147829c3b1dfc63eac9,
title = "Guideline of guidelines: Asymptomatic microscopic haematuria",
abstract = "The aim of the present study was to review major organizational guidelines on the evaluation and management of asymptomatic microscopic haematuria (AMH). We reviewed the haematuria guidelines from: the American Urological Association; the consensus statement by the Canadian Urological Association, Canadian Urologic Oncology Group and Bladder Cancer Canada; the American College of Physicians; the Joint Consensus Statement of the Renal Association and British Association of Urological Surgeons; and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. All guidelines reviewed recommend evaluation for AMH in the absence of potential benign aetiologies, with the evaluation including cystoscopy and upper urinary tract imaging. Existing guidelines vary in their definition of AMH (role of urine dipstick vs urine microscopy), the age threshold for recommending evaluation, and the optimal imaging method (computed tomography vs ultrasonography). Of the reviewed guidelines, none recommended the use of urine cytology or urine markers during the initial AMH evaluation. Patients should have ongoing follow-up after a negative initial AMH evaluation. Significant variation exists among current guidelines for AMH with respect to who should be evaluated and in what manner. Given the patient and health system implications of balancing appropriately focused and effective diagnostic evaluation, AMH represents a valuable future research opportunity.",
keywords = "Guidelines, Haematuria, International, Microscopic haematuria, Review",
author = "Linder, {Brian J.} and Bass, {Edward J.} and Hugh Mostafid and Boorjian, {Stephen A.}",
year = "2017",
doi = "10.1111/bju.14016",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "BJU International",
issn = "1464-4096",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Guideline of guidelines

T2 - Asymptomatic microscopic haematuria

AU - Linder, Brian J.

AU - Bass, Edward J.

AU - Mostafid, Hugh

AU - Boorjian, Stephen A.

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - The aim of the present study was to review major organizational guidelines on the evaluation and management of asymptomatic microscopic haematuria (AMH). We reviewed the haematuria guidelines from: the American Urological Association; the consensus statement by the Canadian Urological Association, Canadian Urologic Oncology Group and Bladder Cancer Canada; the American College of Physicians; the Joint Consensus Statement of the Renal Association and British Association of Urological Surgeons; and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. All guidelines reviewed recommend evaluation for AMH in the absence of potential benign aetiologies, with the evaluation including cystoscopy and upper urinary tract imaging. Existing guidelines vary in their definition of AMH (role of urine dipstick vs urine microscopy), the age threshold for recommending evaluation, and the optimal imaging method (computed tomography vs ultrasonography). Of the reviewed guidelines, none recommended the use of urine cytology or urine markers during the initial AMH evaluation. Patients should have ongoing follow-up after a negative initial AMH evaluation. Significant variation exists among current guidelines for AMH with respect to who should be evaluated and in what manner. Given the patient and health system implications of balancing appropriately focused and effective diagnostic evaluation, AMH represents a valuable future research opportunity.

AB - The aim of the present study was to review major organizational guidelines on the evaluation and management of asymptomatic microscopic haematuria (AMH). We reviewed the haematuria guidelines from: the American Urological Association; the consensus statement by the Canadian Urological Association, Canadian Urologic Oncology Group and Bladder Cancer Canada; the American College of Physicians; the Joint Consensus Statement of the Renal Association and British Association of Urological Surgeons; and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. All guidelines reviewed recommend evaluation for AMH in the absence of potential benign aetiologies, with the evaluation including cystoscopy and upper urinary tract imaging. Existing guidelines vary in their definition of AMH (role of urine dipstick vs urine microscopy), the age threshold for recommending evaluation, and the optimal imaging method (computed tomography vs ultrasonography). Of the reviewed guidelines, none recommended the use of urine cytology or urine markers during the initial AMH evaluation. Patients should have ongoing follow-up after a negative initial AMH evaluation. Significant variation exists among current guidelines for AMH with respect to who should be evaluated and in what manner. Given the patient and health system implications of balancing appropriately focused and effective diagnostic evaluation, AMH represents a valuable future research opportunity.

KW - Guidelines

KW - Haematuria

KW - International

KW - Microscopic haematuria

KW - Review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85032838704&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85032838704&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/bju.14016

DO - 10.1111/bju.14016

M3 - Article

JO - BJU International

JF - BJU International

SN - 1464-4096

ER -