CurhanGC. Epidemiology of stone disease. Urol Clin North Am, 2007; 34:287–293.
2.
StamatelouKK, FrancisME, JonesCA, et al.Time trends in reported prevalence of kidney stones in the United States: 1976–1994. Kidney Int, 2003; 63:1817–1823.
3.
JohnsonCM, WilsonDM, O'FallonWM, et al.Renal stone epidemiology: A 25-year study in Rochester, Minnesota. Kidney Int, 1979; 16:624–631.
4.
CourseyCA, CasalinoDD, RemerEM, et al.ACR Appropriateness Criteria® acute onset flank pain—suspicion of stone disease. Ultrasound Q, 2012; 28:227–233.
5.
SmithRC, RosenfieldAT, ChoeKA, et al.Acute flank pain: Comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology, 1995; 194:789–794.
6.
KambadakoneAR, EisnerBH, CatalanoOA, SahaniDV. New and evolving concepts in the imaging and management of urolithiasis: Urologists' perspective. Radiographics, 2010; 30:603–623.
7.
HoppeH, StuderR, KesslerTM, et al.Alternate or additional findings to stone disease on unenhanced computerized tomography for acute flank pain can impact management. J Urol, 2006; 175:1725–1730.
8.
KatzDS, ScheerM, LumermanJH, et al.Alternative or additional diagnoses on unenhanced helical computed tomography for suspected renal colic: Experience with 1000 consecutive examinations. Urology, 2000; 56:53–57.
9.
Ionizing radiation exposure of the population of the United States (NCRP Report No 160). Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements; 2009.
10.
KatzSI, SalujaS, BrinkJA, FormanHP. Radiation dose associated with unenhanced CT for suspected renal colic: impact of repetitive studies. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2006; 186:1120–1124.
11.
FerrandinoMN, BagrodiaA, PierreSA, et al.Radiation exposure in the acute and short-term management of urolithiasis at 2 academic centers. J Urol, 2009; 181:668–673.
12.
HyamsES, KorleyFK, PhamJC, MatlagaBR. Trends in imaging use during the emergency department evaluation of flank pain. J Urol, 2011; 186:2270–2274.
13.
Berrington de GonzalezA, MaheshM, KimKP, et al.Projected cancer risks from computed tomographic scans performed in the United States in 2007. Arch Intern Med, 2009; 169:2071–2077.
14.
Smith-BindmanR, LipsonJ, MarcusR, et al.Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med, 2009; 169:2078–2086.
15.
LukasiewiczA, Bhargavan-ChatfieldM, CoombsL, et al.Radiation dose index of renal colic protocol CT studies in the United States: A report from the American College of Radiology National Radiology Data Registry. Radiology, 2014; 271:445–451.
16.
BankierAA, KresselHY. Through the Looking Glass revisited: The need for more meaning and less drama in the reporting of dose and dose reduction in CT. Radiology, 2012; 265:4–8.
17.
FulghamPF, AssimosDG, PearleMS, PremingerGM. Clinical effectiveness protocols for imaging in the management of ureteral calculous disease: AUA technology assessment. J Urol, 2013; 189:1203–1213.
18.
FowlerKA, LockenJA, DuchesneJH, WilliamsonMR. US for detecting renal calculi with nonenhanced CT as a reference standard. Radiology, 2002; 222:109–113.
19.
KannoT, KubotaM, SakamotoH, et al.The efficacy of ultrasonography for the detection of renal stone. Urology, 2014; 84:285–288.
20.
KannoT, KubotaM, SakamotoH, et al.Determining the efficacy of ultrasonography for the detection of ureteral stone. Urology, 2014; 84:533–537.
21.
RayAA, GhiculeteD, PaceKT, HoneyRJ. Limitations to ultrasound in the detection and measurement of urinary tract calculi. Urology, 2010; 76:295–300.
22.
UlusanS, KocZ, TokmakN. Accuracy of sonography for detecting renal stone: Comparison with CT. J Clin Ultrasound, 2007; 35:256–261.
23.
ViprakasitDP, SawyerMD, HerrellSD, MillerNL. Limitations of ultrasonography in the evaluation of urolithiasis: A correlation with computed tomography. J Endourol, 2012; 26:209–213.
24.
EdmondsML, YanJW, SedranRJ, et al.The utility of renal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of renal colic in emergency department patients. CJEM, 2010; 12:201–206.
25.
Smith-BindmanR, AubinC, BailitzJ, et al.Ultrasonography versus computed tomography for suspected nephrolithiasis. N Engl J Med, 2014; 371:1100–1110.
26.
PremingerGM, TiseliusHG, AssimosDG, et al.2007 guideline for the management of ureteral calculi. J Urol, 2007; 178:2418–2434.
27.
BandiG, MeinersRJ, PickhardtPJ, NakadaSY. Stone measurement by volumetric three-dimensional computed tomography for predicting the outcome after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. BJU Int, 2009; 103:524–528.
28.
KimSC, BurnsEK, LingemanJE, et al.Cystine calculi: Correlation of CT-visible structure, CT number, and stone morphology with fragmentation by shock wave lithotripsy. Urol Res, 2007; 35:319–324.
29.
PerksAE, SchulerTD, LeeJ, et al.Stone attenuation and skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography predicts for stone fragmentation by shock wave lithotripsy. Urology, 2008; 72:765–769.
30.
MostafaviMR, ErnstRD, SaltzmanB. Accurate determination of chemical composition of urinary calculi by spiral computerized tomography. J Urol, 1998; 159:673–675.
31.
GraserA, JohnsonTR, BaderM, et al.Dual energy CT characterization of urinary calculi: Initial in vitro and clinical experience. Invest Radiol, 2008; 43:112–119.
32.
PareekG, HedicanSP, LeeFTJr., NakadaSY. Shock wave lithotripsy success determined by skin-to-stone distance on computed tomography. Urology, 2005; 66:941–944.
33.
KulkarniNM, PinhoDF, KambadakoneAR, SahaniDV. Emerging technologies in CT- radiation dose reduction and dual-energy CT. Semin Roentgenol, 2013; 48:192–202.
34.
McNitt-GrayMF. AAPM/RSNA Physics Tutorial for Residents: Topics in CT. Radiation dose in CT. Radiographics, 2002; 22:1541–1553.
35.
BushbergJT, SeibertJA, LeidholdtEM, BooneJM. The Essential Physics of Medical Imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.
36.
KalraMK, MaherMM, TothTL, KamathRS, HalpernEF, SainiS. Comparison of Z-axis automatic tube current modulation technique with fixed tube current CT scanning of abdomen and pelvis. Radiology, 2004; 232:347–353.
37.
RizzoS, KalraM, SchmidtB, et al.Comparison of angular and combined automatic tube current modulation techniques with constant tube current CT of the abdomen and pelvis. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2006; 186:673–679.
38.
KalraMK, MaherMM, D'SouzaRV, et al.Detection of urinary tract stones at low-radiation-dose CT with z-axis automatic tube current modulation: Phantom and clinical studies. Radiology, 2005; 235:523–529.
39.
CiaschiniMW, RemerEM, BakerME, et al.Urinary calculi: Radiation dose reduction of 50% and 75% at CT—effect on sensitivity. Radiology, 2009; 251:105–111.
40.
NiemannT, Van StratenM, ResingerC, et al.Detection of urolithiasis using low-dose CT—a noise simulation study. Eur J Radiol, 2011; 80:213–218.
41.
PaulsonEK, WeaverC, HoLM, et al.Conventional and reduced radiation dose of 16-MDCT for detection of nephrolithiasis and ureterolithiasis. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2008; 190:151–157.
42.
JinDH, LambertonGR, BroomeDR, et al.Effect of reduced radiation CT protocols on the detection of renal calculi. Radiology, 2010; 255:100–107.
43.
HeneghanJP, McGuireKA, LederRA, et al.Helical CT for nephrolithiasis and ureterolithiasis: Comparison of conventional and reduced radiation-dose techniques. Radiology, 2003; 229:575–580.
44.
KimBS, HwangIK, ChoiYW, et al.Low-dose and standard-dose unenhanced helical computed tomography for the assessment of acute renal colic: Prospective comparative study. Acta Radiol, 2005; 46:756–763.
45.
PolettiPA, PlatonA, RutschmannOT, et al.Low-dose versus standard-dose CT protocol in patients with clinically suspected renal colic. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2007; 188:927–933.
46.
WinklehnerA, BlumeI, WinklhoferS, et al.Iterative reconstructions versus filtered back-projection for urinary stone detection in low-dose CT. Acad Radiol, 2013; 20:1429–1435.
47.
MayMS, WüstW, BrandM, et al.Dose reduction in abdominal computed tomography: Intraindividual comparison of image quality of full-dose standard and half-dose iterative reconstructions with dual-source computed tomography. Invest Radiol, 2011; 46:465–470.
48.
KulkarniNM, UppotRN, EisnerBH, SahaniDV. Radiation dose reduction at multidetector CT with adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction for evaluation of urolithiasis: How low can we go?. Radiology, 2012; 265:158–166.
49.
McLaughlinPD, MurphyKP, HayesSA, et al.Non-contrast CT at comparable dose to an abdominal radiograph in patients with acute renal colic; impact of iterative reconstruction on image quality and diagnostic performance. Insights Imaging, 2014; 5:217–230.
50.
VeldhoenS, LaqmaniA, DerlinT, et al.256-MDCT for evaluation of urolithiasis: Iterative reconstruction allows for a significant reduction of the applied radiation dose while maintaining high subjective and objective image quality. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol, 2014; 58:283–290.
51.
RemerEM, HertsBR, PrimakA, et al.Detection of urolithiasis: Comparison of 100% tube exposure images reconstructed with filtered back projection and 50% tube exposure images reconstructed with sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction. Radiology, 2014; 272:749–756.
52.
KlunerC, HeinPA, GrallaO, et al.Does ultra-low-dose CT with a radiation dose equivalent to that of KUB suffice to detect renal and ureteral calculi?. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 2006; 30:44–50.
53.
FowlerJ, CutressM, AbubackerZ, et al.Clinical evaluation of ultra-low dose contrast-enhanced CT in patients presenting with acute ureteric colic. Br J Med Surg Urol, 2011; 4:56–63.
54.
PoolerBD, LubnerMG, KimDH, et al.Prospective trial of the detection of urolithiasis on ultralow dose (sub mSv) noncontrast computerized tomography: Direct comparison against routine low dose reference standard. J Urol, 2014; 192:1433–1439.
55.
GlazerD, MaturenK, CohanR, et al.Assessment of 1 mSv urinary tract stone CT with model-based iterative reconstruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2014; 203:1230–1235.
56.
NiemannT, KollmannT, BongartzG. Diagnostic performance of low-dose CT for the detection of urolithiasis: A meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2008; 191:396–401.
57.
AlsyoufM, SmithDL, OlginG, et al.Comparing stone attenuation in low- and conventional-dose noncontrast computed tomography. J Endourol, 2014; 28:704–707.
58.
SohnW, ClaymanRV, LeeJY, et al.Low-dose and standard computed tomography scans yield equivalent stone measurements. Urology, 2013; 81:231–234.
59.
ThomasC, HeuschmidM, SchillingD, et al.Urinary calculi composed of uric acid, cystine, and mineral salts: Differentiation with dual-energy CT at a radiation dose comparable to that of intravenous pyelography. Radiology, 2010; 257:402–409.
60.
HammM, KnopfleE, WartenbergS, et al.Low dose unenhanced helical computerized tomography for the evaluation of acute flank pain. J Urol, 2002; 167:1687–1691.
61.
TackD, SourtzisS, DelpierreI, et al.Low-dose unenhanced multidetector CT of patients with suspected renal colic. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2003; 180:305–311.
62.
MulkensTH, DaineffeS, De WijngaertR, et al.Urinary stone disease: Comparison of standard-dose and low-dose with 4D MDCT tube current modulation. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2007; 188:553–562.
63.
GervaiseA, NauletP, BeuretF, et al.Low-dose CT with automatic tube current modulation, adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction, and low tube voltage for the diagnosis of renal colic: Impact of body mass index. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2014; 202:553–560.
