ArticleCureus2017
Non-Contrast Computed Tomography Scan Based Parameters of Ureteric Stones Affecting the Outcome of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy.
Article in Cureus, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The comparison of totally ultrasound-guided versus fluoroscopy-guided shockwave lithotripsy in renal stone treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.F1000Research · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Impact of the Mayo adhesive probability score on ESWL outcomes for proximal ureteral stones.Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- Impact of hydronephrosis on shockwave lithotripsy outcomes for upper ureteral stones.International urology and nephrology · 2025Article
- Which Measure of Stone Burden is the Best Predictor of Interventional Outcomes in Urolithiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis by the YAU Urolithiasis Working Group and EAU Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel.European urology open science · 2025Review
- The effect of stone and patient characteristics in predicting extra-corporal shock wave lithotripsy success rate: A cross sectional study.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2021Article
- Traditional Chinese medicine on treating ureteral calculi: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.Medicine · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) scan-based parameters of ureteric stones affecting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL). MATERIALS AND
methodsWe retrospectively evaluated the pre-procedure NCCT of 74 patients who had ESWL for solitary ureteric calculi of 5-20 mm in diameter. We assessed the age, sex, basal metabolic index (BMI), laterality, location, presence of double 'J' (DJ) stent, skin to stone distance (SSD), stone maximum diameter, Hounsfield unit (HU), Hounsfield density (HD), area, and volume. All those who had no stone on follow-up imaging within 30 days were declared successful while those who had residual stone were declared failures.
resultsThe overall success rate was 78% (58/74). Sixty (81.1%) patients were male. The success of ESWL was correlated with lower SSD, Hounsfield units (HU) and Hounsfield density (HD). However, in multivariate analysis, SSD, Hounsfield unit, and stone area showed correlation with success of procedure but Hounsfield density failed to show correlation. The success rate in patients with stone HU <500, 500-1000 and >1000 were 93.9%, 69%, and 58.3%, respectively. Patients with lower BMI (<30 kg/m
conclusionBMI, SSD, stone Hounsfield units and Hounsfield unit density were strong predictors of outcome of ESWL for ureteric stone.
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.