Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Log out

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Research Article

The diagnostic value of macroscopic haematuria for the diagnosis of urological cancer in general practice.

Rudi Bruyninckx, Frank Buntinx, Bert Aertgeerts and Viviane Van Casteren
British Journal of General Practice 2003; 53 (486): 31-35.
Rudi Bruyninckx
Department of General Practice, ACHG Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33 Blok J, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. rudi.bruyninckx@skynet.be
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Frank Buntinx
Department of General Practice, ACHG Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33 Blok J, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. rudi.bruyninckx@skynet.be
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bert Aertgeerts
Department of General Practice, ACHG Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33 Blok J, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. rudi.bruyninckx@skynet.be
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Viviane Van Casteren
Department of General Practice, ACHG Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33 Blok J, 3000 Leuven, Belgium. rudi.bruyninckx@skynet.be
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The diagnostic value and the impact of some signs and symptoms in most diseases in primary care have only been studied incompletely. AIM: To assess the diagnostic value of macroscopic haematuria for the idagnosis of urological cancer (bladder, kidney) in a general practice setting, as well the influence of age, sex, and some additional signs and symptoms. DESIGN OF STUDY: Diagnostic study. SETTING: The study was performed in a sentinel station network of general practices in Belgium, covering almost 1% of the population. SUBJECTS: All patients attending their general practitioner and complaining of haematuria during 1993 and 1994 were included for the prospective part of the study. Every patient diagnosed with a urological cancer in this period was registered for the retrospective part. METHOD: Mean outcome measures of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and positive and negative likelihood ratio were used to assess diagnostic value. RESULTS: Within the registration year 1993-1994, patient-doctor encounters, related to 83,890 patient-years, were registered. The positive predictive value (PPV) for urological cancer was 10.3% (95% CI = 7.6% to 13.7%). Sensitivity was 59.5% (95% CI = 50.4% to 60.1%). The PPV of patients aged over 60 years was 22.1% (95% CI = 15.8% to 30.1%) for men and 8.3% (95% CI = 3.4% to 17.9%) for women. In the age group 40 to 59 years, the PPV was 3.6% (95% CI = 0.6% to 13.4%) for men and 6.4% (95% CI = 1.7% to 18.6%) for women. In the prospective part of the study, no urological cancer was found in the age group under 40 years. CONCLUSION: Men older than 60 years of age with macroscopic haematuria have a high positive predictive value for urological cancer. In these patients, a thorough investigation is indicated. In patients over 40 years of age of either sex, referral or watchful waiting can be justified.

Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 53 (486)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 53, Issue 486
January 2003
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The diagnostic value of macroscopic haematuria for the diagnosis of urological cancer in general practice.
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
The diagnostic value of macroscopic haematuria for the diagnosis of urological cancer in general practice.
Rudi Bruyninckx, Frank Buntinx, Bert Aertgeerts, Viviane Van Casteren
British Journal of General Practice 2003; 53 (486): 31-35.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
The diagnostic value of macroscopic haematuria for the diagnosis of urological cancer in general practice.
Rudi Bruyninckx, Frank Buntinx, Bert Aertgeerts, Viviane Van Casteren
British Journal of General Practice 2003; 53 (486): 31-35.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Integrated primary mental health care: threat or opportunity in the new NHS?
  • "The cawing of the crow...Cassandra-like, prognosticating woe".
  • New concepts in screening.
Show more Research Article

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242