Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Per-Uno Malmström Department of Urology,
University Hospital, SE-75 185 Uppsala, Sweden per-uno.malmstrom@kirurgi.uu.se
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Although there is no doubt that macroscopic haematuria is serious, the clinical significance of asymptomatic microscopic haematuria is controversial. Should it still be tested for?
Macroscopic haematuria has always been considered to be
serious. Hippocrates stated, "If a patient passes blood, pus, and scales, in the urine, and if it has a heavy smell, ulceration of the
bladder is indicated." The clinical significance of
"microhaematuria" (microscopic haematuria), on the other hand, is
more controversial. No consensus exists on the role of asymptomatic
microhaematuria in the diagnosis of diseases, and guidelines are
contradictory.1-3 Thus, this finding, which has been
brought to the fore by the wide use of dipstick testing, presents a
dilemma for doctors and even for patients.4 Recently the
clinical importance of symptomatic microhaematuria has also been
questioned.5 This article looks at the evidence base for
the diagnostic value of microhaematuria.
|
Summary points
|
| |
Methods |
|---|
I was one of a panel of Swedish
Read all Rapid Responses
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+