Table 2.
Choice of urinary drainage for the three scenarios between urologists and radiologists, before and after reading the evidence provided to them (double-J stent (DJS) or percutaneous nephrostomy (PN)
| Urologist (n = 310) | p (Chi-square) | Radiologist (n = 56) | p (Chi-square) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PN | DJS | Primary URS | Either PN or DJS | PN | DJS | Primary URS | Either PN or DJS | ||||
| Scenario 1 | Pre | 81 (26.1%) | 167 (53.9%) | 9 (2.9%) | 53 (17,1%) | 0.37 | 42 (75%) | 11 (19.6%) | 1 (1.8%) | 2 (3.6%) | 0.21 |
| Post | 88 (28.4%) | 159 (51.3%) | 10 (3.2%) | 53 (17,1%) | 35 (62.5%) | 16 (28.5%) | 0 | 5 (9%) | |||
| Total change | 16/310 (5.2%) | 16/56 (28.6%) | < 0.001 | ||||||||
| Scenario 2 | Pre | 7 (2.2%) | 185 (59.6%) | 111 (36%) | 7 (2.2%) | 0.14 | 9 (16%) | 33 (59%) | 11 (20%) | 3 (5%) | 0.64 |
| Post | 13 (4.2%) | 173 (55.8%) | 117 (37.8%) | 7 (2.2%) | 11 (20%) | 32 (57%) | 8 (14%) | 5 (9%) | |||
| Total change | 24/310 (7.7%) | 8/56 (14.3%) | 0.11 | ||||||||
| Scenario 3 | Pre | 39 (12.6%) | 178 (57.4%) | 63 (20.4) | 30 (9.6%) | 0.83 | 23 (41%) | 26 (46%) | 2 (4%) | 5 (9%) | 0.55 |
| Post | 39 (12.6%) | 174 (56.1%) | 67 (21.7%) | 30 (9.6%) | 22 (39.3%) | 22 (39.3%) | 3 (5.4%) | 9 (16%) | |||
| Total change | 8/310 (2.6%) | 10/56 (17.9%) | < 0.001 | ||||||||