2026, Number 1
<< Back Next >>
Aten Fam 2026; 33 (1)
Gaps and Challenges in the Evaluation of Microscopic Hematuria in Primary Care
Jimenez-Maya YT, Morales-Vázquez JM
Language: Spanish
References: 6
Page: 67-69
PDF size: 142.49 Kb.
Text Extraction
No abstract.
REFERENCES
An C, Jeong J, Chiu C, Gaston E, Kennedy A,Sternberg K. Risk stratification and diagnosticevaluation of patients found to have microscopichematuria by their primary care providers. J GenFam Med. 2025;26(1):73–78.
Lippmann QK, Slezak JM, Menefee SA, Ng CK,Whitcomb EL, Loo RK. Evaluation of microscopichematuria and risk of urologic cancer in femalepatients. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;216(2):146.e1-146.e7.
3 Barocas DA, Boorjian SA, Alvarez RD, DownsTM, Gross CP, Hamilton BD, et al. Microhematuria:AUA/SUFU Guideline. J. Urol.2020;204(4):778–786.
Schmidt-Hansen M, Hamilton W. The NICEprimary care referral guideline for suspectedbladder or renal cancer. Trend Urol Mens Heal.2016;7(2):21–24.
Gold SA, Kenigsberg AP, Lotan Y. Diagnostic andCost Implications of the 2020 AUA MicrohematuriaGuidelines: Modeling Impact in a Large PublicHealth Care System. J. Urol. 2022;207(1):52–59.
Bochner E, Ibezue C, Banerji D, Attia S, TaylorJ, Lotan Y. Assessing the Diagnostic Performanceof Renal Ultrasound in MicrohematuriaEvaluation: Validation of the AUAMicrohematuria 2020 Guidelines. Urology.2025:S0090-4295(25)00881-7.69
Full text