Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27864591›Full record

ArticleUrolithiasis2017

Comparison of S.T.O.N.E and CROES nephrolithometry scoring systems for predicting stone-free status and complication rates after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a single center study with 262 cases.

Serkan Yarimoglu, Salih Polat, Ibrahim Halil Bozkurt, Tarık Yonguc, Ozgu Aydogdu, Erhan Aydın, Tansu Degirmenci

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Urolithiasis, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Study on risk factors, bacterial species, and drug resistance of acute pyelonephritis associated with ureteral stent after percutaneous nephrolithotomy.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Serkan YarimogluDepartment of Urology, Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, Karabaglar, Izmir, Turkey.
Salih PolatDepartment of Urology, Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, Karabaglar, Izmir, Turkey. salihpolat@gmail.com.
Ibrahim Halil BozkurtDepartment of Urology, Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, Karabaglar, Izmir, Turkey.
Tarık YongucDepartment of Urology, Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, Karabaglar, Izmir, Turkey.
Ozgu AydogduDepartment of Urology, Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, Karabaglar, Izmir, Turkey.
Erhan AydınDepartment of Urology, Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, Karabaglar, Izmir, Turkey.
Tansu DegirmenciDepartment of Urology, Izmir Bozyaka Training and Research Hospital, Karabaglar, Izmir, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of the CROES nephrolithometric nomogram and S.T.O.N.E. scoring system in predicting PCNL outcomes in terms of stone-free rate, estimated blood loss (EBL), operative time (OR), length of hospital stay (LOS), and complications. Patients who underwent PCNL for renal stones between May 2012 and January 2015 were analyzed retrospectively. The patients' demographic characteristics and operational features were recorded prospectively in all patients postoperatively. S.T.O.N.E. and CROES nephrolithometry scores' correlation with stone-free status, operation and fluoroscopy time, length of hospital stay (LOS) and blood loss (BL) was evaluated. Patients were categorized according to S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry and CROES nephrolithometry scores. Postoperative complications were graded according to modified Clavien classification (Dindo et al. in Ann Surg 240:205-213, 2004) and the correlation of both scoring systems with postoperative complications was also evaluated. We identified 437 patients who underwent PCNL between May 2012 and January 2015. A total of 262 patients who are available data for the CROES and S.T.O.N.E. scoring systems were included in the recent study. The mean S.T.O.N.E score was 7.65 ± 1.56 and the mean CROES score was 191.13 ± 64.39. The overall stone-free rate was 71.4%. Of the 262 patients, 89 experienced postoperative complications. Stone-free patients had significantly lower BMI (<0.001) and stone burden (p < 0.001). Regression analysis showed that both scoring systems were significantly associated with stone-free rates and operation time. We demonstrated that S.T.O.N.E. and CROES scoring systems were useful for predicting post-PCNL stone-free status. But both scoring systems were not useful for predicting post-PCNL complications.

Indexed as

NomogramsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overBlood Loss, SurgicalFemaleFluoroscopyHumansKidney CalculiLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsRetrospective StudiesCROES nephrolithometry scoreModified Clavien classificationS.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.