100
Views
11
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Research

Perirenal fat stranding is not a powerful diagnostic tool for acute pyelonephritis

, , , , , , & show all
Pages 137-144 | Published online: 08 May 2017

Figures & data

Figure 1 Representative image of PFS (open arrow heads).

Abbreviation: PFS, perirenal fat stranding.
Figure 1 Representative image of PFS (open arrow heads).

Figure 2 Flowchart showing participant screening for this study.

Abbreviations: ICD-10, 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems; CT, computed tomography; PRB, percutaneous renal biopsy; UTI, urinary tract infection.
Figure 2 Flowchart showing participant screening for this study.

Table 1 Patient characteristics

Table 2 Sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratio of PFS to diagnose acute pyelonephritis for all enrolled patients

Figure 3 Frequency of PFS by age group.

Abbreviations: PFS, perirenal fat stranding; NS, not significant.
Figure 3 Frequency of PFS by age group.

Figure 4 Frequency of PFS by sex.

Abbreviations: PFS, perirenal fat stranding; NS, not significant.
Figure 4 Frequency of PFS by sex.

Figure 5 Frequency of PFS by eGFR.

Abbreviations: PFS, perirenal fat stranding; eGFR, estimated glomerular filtration rate; NS, not significant.
Figure 5 Frequency of PFS by eGFR.

Table 3 Patient characteristics adjusted by age, sex, and renal function using the propensity score analysis

Table 4 Sensitivity, specificity, and positive likelihood ratio of PFS to diagnose acute pyelonephritis after propensity score adjustment for age, sex, and renal function

Table 5 Frequency of causative bacteria