ArticleJournal of medical ultrasonics (2001)2010
Ultrasonography for ureteral stone detection in patients with or without caliceal dilatation.
Article in Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of the renal collecting system using a pocket-sized ultrasound device.Journal of medical ultrasonics (2001) · 2018Article
- Overview of point-of-care abdominal ultrasound in emergency and critical care.Journal of intensive care · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the relationship between the degree of hydronephrosis and the detection rates of ureteral stones with ultrasonography (US).
methodsOf 250 consecutive patients with suspected ureterolithiasis, 214 who were diagnosed with ureterolithiasis were enrolled in this study. First, both kidneys were observed by US to evaluate the intrarenal collecting systems. Thereafter, the possible course of the ureters and the bladder were searched to find any stones.
resultsStones were clearly observed in 80 (73%) of 109 patients with caliceal dilatation, whereas stones were clearly observed in 46 (44%) of 105 patients without dilatation (P < 0.05). Of the former 80 patients, 31 (39%) had stones in the ureterovesical junction (UVJ), whereas 51 (64%) had stones in the more proximal ureter. Of the latter 46 patients, 37 (80%) had stones in the UVJ or the bladder, whereas 9 (20%) had stones in the more proximal ureter.
conclusionThe US detection rate of ureteral stones was high in patients with caliceal dilatation. The whole ureter should be scanned in patients with caliceal dilatation for detection of ureteral stones. Even when patients have no caliceal dilatation, it is still considered to be useful to scan the UVJ and the bladder.
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.