ArticleInternational journal of biomedical imaging2016
The Capabilities and Limitations of Clinical Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Detecting Kidney Stones: A Retrospective Study.
Article in International journal of biomedical imaging, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Novel Ensemble Learning Approach for Grouping the State-of-the-Art YOLOV10 and YOLOV11 Models for Kidney Stone Detection in CT and Ultrasound Images.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2026Article
- Kidney stones and autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease: a state-of-the-art review.Renal failure · 2025Review
- Shockwaves and the Rolling Stones: An Overview of Pediatric Stone Disease.Kidney international reports · 2023Review
- [Update of the 2Sk guidelines on the diagnostics, treatment and metaphylaxis of urolithiasis (AWMF register number 043-025) : What is new?]Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2019Review
- Incidental Extraspinal Findings in the Thoracic Spine during Magnetic Resonance Imaging of Intervertebral Discs.Journal of clinical imaging science · 2019Article
- Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this work was to investigate the performance of currently available magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for detecting kidney stones, compared to computed tomography (CT) results, and to determine the characteristics of successfully detected stones. Patients who had undergone both abdominal/pelvic CT and MRI exams within 30 days were studied. The images were reviewed by two expert radiologists blinded to the patients' respective radiological diagnoses. The study consisted of four steps: (1) reviewing the MRI images and determining whether any kidney stone(s) are identified; (2) reviewing the corresponding CT images and confirming whether kidney stones are identified; (3) reviewing the MRI images a second time, armed with the information from the corresponding CT, noting whether any kidney stones are positively identified that were previously missed; (4) for all stones MRI-confirmed on previous steps, the radiologist experts being asked to answer whether in retrospect, with knowledge of size and location on corresponding CT, these stones would be affirmed as confidently identified on MRI or not. In this best-case scenario involving knowledge of stones and their locations on concurrent CT, radiologist experts detected 19% of kidney stones on MRI, with stone size being a major factor for stone identification.
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.