Completed Prognosis Worksheet for Evidence-Based General Practice
Citation
Kamihira O, et al Long-term stone recurrence rate after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 1996 Oct;156(4):1267-71
Are the results of this prognosis study valid?
-
Was a defined, representative sample of patients assembled at a common (usually early) point in the course of their disease?
903 consecutive patients without residual fragments 3 months after lithotripsy were enrolled. -
Was patient follow-up sufficiently long and complete?
Mean followup was 25 months; with maximum followup beyond 5 years. -
Were objective outcome criteria applied in a "blind" fashion?
Plain abdominal films and/or excretory urograms were evaluated every 6 months. -
If subgroups with different prognoses are identified, was there adjustment for important prognostic factors?
Recurrence rates were higher with multiple stones and pyuria. -
Was there validation in an independent group ("test-set") of patients?
No.
Are the valid results of this prognosis study important?
-
How likely are the outcomes over time?
At 25 months mean followup, 183 of 903 patients (20.3%) had had a recurrence. Kaplan-Meier curves show recurrence of:
6.7% (1 year), 28.0 (3 years) and 41.8% (5 years) respectively. -
How precise are the prognostic estimates?
20% recurrence at 25 months; 95% CI 17%-23%.
If you want to calculate a Confidence Interval around the measure of Prognosis
| Clinical Measure | Standard Error (SE) | Typical calculation of CI |
|---|---|---|
|
Proportion (as in the rate of some prognostic event, etc.) where: the number of patients = n the proportion of these patients who experience the event = p |
![]() where p is proportion and n is number of patients |
If p = 24/60 = 0.4 (or 40%) and n=60 SE = ![]() SE = 0.063 95% CI is 40% +/- 1.96 x 6.3% or 27.6% to 52.4% |
|
n from your evidence: ________ p from your evidence: ________ |
![]() where p is proportion and n is number of patients |
Your calculation: SE: ____________ 95% CI: |
Can you apply this valid, important evidence about prognosis in caring for your patient?
-
Were the study patients similar to your own?
My patient is likely to be at lower risk (single small stone, no pyuria, first episode). -
Will this evidence make a clinically important impact on your conclusions about what to offer or tell your patient?
Yes - the risk is lower than expected, hence we have not considered prophylaxis for this episode.
Additional Notes
Several other studies were found but none looked at a cohort of ALL first presentations of renal colic. The filters in these studies will generally tend to overestimate the recurrence rate.



