ArticleThe Journal of urology2012
Fragility of brushite stones in shock wave lithotripsy: absence of correlation with computerized tomography visible structure.
Article in The Journal of urology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Kidney Stones as Minerals: How Methods from Geology Could Inform Urolithiasis Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- CT-based radiomics for predicting success of shock wave lithotripsy in ureteral stones larger than 1 cm.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Article
- Robustness of Textural Features to Predict Stone Fragility Across Computed Tomography Acquisition and Reconstruction Parameters.Academic radiology · 2019Article
- Quantitative Prediction of Stone Fragility From Routine Dual Energy CT: Ex vivo proof of Feasibility.Academic radiology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeBrushite stones were imaged in vitro and then broken with shock wave lithotripsy to assess whether stone fragility correlates with internal stone structure visible on helical computerized tomography. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 52 brushite calculi were scanned by micro computerized tomography, weighed, hydrated and placed in a radiological phantom. Stones were scanned using a Philips® Brilliance iCT 256 system and images were evaluated for the visibility of internal structural features. The calculi were then treated with shock wave lithotripsy in vitro. The number of shock waves needed to break each stone to completion was recorded.
resultsThe number of shock waves needed to break each stone normalized to stone weight did not differ by HU value (p = 0.84) or by computerized tomography visible structures that could be identified consistently by all observers (p = 0.053). Stone fragility correlated highly with stone density and brushite content (each p <0.001). Calculi of almost pure brushite required the most shock waves to break. When all observations of computerized tomography visible structures were used for analysis by logistic fit, computerized tomography visible structure predicted increased stone fragility with an overall area under the ROC curve of 0.64.
conclusionsThe shock wave lithotripsy fragility of brushite stones did not correlate with internal structure discernible on helical computerized tomography. However, fragility did correlate with stone density and increasing brushite mineral content, consistent with clinical experience with patients with brushite calculi. Thus, current diagnostic computerized tomography technology does not provide a means to predict when brushite stones will break well using shock wave lithotripsy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.