ArticleArab journal of urology2016
Comparison of ureteric stone size, on bone window versus standard soft-tissue window settings, on multi-detector non-contrast computed tomography.
Article in Arab journal of urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combining Retroperitoneal Laparoscopic Ureterolithotomy and Flexible Ureteroscopy for Effective Removal of a Large Ureteral Stone: A Case Report.The American journal of case reports · 2025Article
- Role of Multidetector Computed Tomography Urography in the Evaluation of Obstructive Uropathy: A Review.Cureus · 2023Review
- The Effect of Propofol on the Success Rate of Transurethral Lithotripsy by Holmium Laser: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of lasers in medical sciences · 2020Article
- Upward migration of a ureteric stone in a military trainer: a case report.Research and reports in urology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the difference in mean stone size, as measured on bone window vs standard soft-tissue window setting using multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) in patients with a solitary ureteric stone. PATIENTS AND
methodsIn all, 60 patients presenting to the emergency and outpatient departments of a University Hospital from May 2015 to October 2015 and fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included in the study. A 64-slice MDCT was used to assess the locations and size of the ureteric stones. A consultant radiologist independently analysed the MDCT scans of all the patients. The mean difference in stone size was calculated between both window settings in axial and coronal planes.
resultsThe mean (SD) age of the patients was 37.13 (11.9) years. Males constituted ∼68% of the cohort and 32% were female. In all, 85% of the patients had left ureteric stones and 15% had right ureteric stones. The mean (SD) stone size, as measured on the soft-tissue window setting was 6.68 (2.01) mm, and on the bone window setting was 4.8 (1.9) mm. The mean (SD) difference in stone size between the two window settings was +1.85 (0.55) mm. The two means were compared using Student's t-test, and the difference was found to be statistically significant (P < 0.05).
conclusionThe stone size measured using the soft-tissue window setting on a MDCT is significantly different from the measurement on the bone window setting.
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.