ArticleTurkish journal of urology2016
Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy is a reliable method for urinary stone analysis.
Article in Turkish journal of urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe compared laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) with the traditionally used and recommended X-ray diffraction technique (XRD) for urinary stone analysis. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn total, 65 patients with urinary calculi were enrolled in this prospective study. Stones were obtained after surgical or extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy procedures. All stones were divided into two equal pieces. One sample was analyzed by XRD and the other by LIBS. The results were compared by the kappa (κ) and Spearman's correlation coefficient (rho) tests.
resultsUsing LIBS, 95 components were identified from 65 stones, while XRD identified 88 components. LIBS identified 40 stones with a single pure component, 20 stones with two different components, and 5 stones with three components. XRD demonstrated 42 stones with a single component, 22 stones with two different components, and only 1 stone with three different components. There was a strong relationship in the detection of stone types between LIBS and XRD for stones components (Spearman rho, 0.866; p<0.001). There was excellent agreement between the two techniques among 38 patients with pure stones (κ index, 0.910; Spearman rho, 0.916; p<0.001).
conclusionOur study indicates that LIBS is a valid and reliable technique for determining urinary stone composition. Moreover, it is a simple, low-cost, and nondestructive technique. LIBS can be safely used in routine daily practice if our results are supported by studies with larger numbers of patients.
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.