Can clinical scores reduce CT use in renal colic? A head-to-head comparison

Abstract

Objective: Non-contrast computed tomography (CT) remains the gold standard for diagnosing ureteral stones, with excellent sensitivity and specificity. However, reliance on CT alone raises concerns regarding cumulative radiation exposure, particularly in recurrent stone formers. Clinical scoring systems such as CHOKAI, STONE, and modified STONE have been developed to provide practical bedside tools for diagnostic decision-making. This study prospectively compared these three clinical scores for their ability to predict urinary-stone disease in the emergency department. Study Design: Prospective study. Methods and Duration of the Study: Between 6 August 2024 and 15 February 2025, 130 consecutively enrolled adults with flank pain underwent bedside scoring and reference-standard non-contrast CT. Associations were analysed with Chi-Square Tests and multivariable logistic regression. Model calibration was assessed with the Hosmer–Lemeshow test; overall accuracy was calculated. Results: When the variables used in different stone scoring formulas were compared according to the computer tomography results, there was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.01) between patients with and without a history of stone and hydronephrosis. Patients with nausea, history of stone, and hydronephrosis were 11, 4.2, and 5 times more highly to have a stone on computer tomography than those without, respectively. Conclusions: In this Turkish cohort, CHOKAI and modified STONE demonstrated superior predictive performance compared to the original STONE score. These findings suggest that clinical scoring systems, when incorporating predictors such as nausea, prior stone history, and hydronephrosis, may serve as practical alternatives to CT-first diagnostic approaches. Multicenter validation studies are required before routine clinical adoption.