Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30984645›Full record

ArticleJournal of family medicine and primary care2019

An investigation into the clinical accuracy of twinkling artifacts in patients with urolithiasis smaller than 5 mm in comparison with computed tomography scanning.

Mohammad Qasem Hanafi, Ahmad Fakhrizadeh, Esmat Jaafaezadeh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mohammad Qasem HanafiDepartment of Radiology, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Ahmad FakhrizadehDepartment of Radiology, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Esmat JaafaezadehDepartment of Radiology, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.
Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUltrasound (US) is a non-invasive method used for the diagnosis of urolithiasis. If the size of the stone is <5 mm, it may be difficult to diagnose. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of twinkling artifact (TA) of color Doppler US imaging with unenhanced computed tomography (CT) for detecting urolithiasis <5 mm. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis prospective study was conducted on 100 patients with suspected renal calculus presented to the emergency room at the Imam Khomeini Hospital of Ahwaz in 2018. The US findings such as posterior acoustic shadowing and TA were examined for their ability to detect urinary stones (greatest diameter ≤5 mm) using CT findings as the gold standard.

resultsThe mean size of renal stone was 3.43 ± 0.80 mm in CT and 3.49 ± 0.82 mm in color Doppler US. There was no significant difference between CT and color Doppler US report in quantification of urolithiasis sizes (

conclusionThe results demonstrated that TA on color Doppler US could be a good and safe alternative imaging modality with comparable results with non-contrast-enhanced computed tomography for the sensitive detection of urolithiasis <5 mm.

Indexed as

Color Doppler ultrasoundtwinkling artifactunenhanced computed tomographyurolithiasis

Identifiers

PMID30984645
PMCPMC6436258
OpenAlexW2916141435

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.