Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31262284›Full record

SynthesisBMC urology2019

Evaluation of three stone-scoring systems for predicting SFR and complications after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Kehua Jiang, Fa Sun, Jianguo Zhu, Guangheng Luo, Peng Zhang, Yong Ban, Gang Shan, Changxiang Liu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC urology, 2019. 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. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Predicting the Stone-Free Status of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy with the Machine Learning System.International journal of nephrology and renovascular disease · 2023
    Article
  13. Observational
  14. Can the Stone Scoring Systems Be Used to Predict Infective Complications of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery?Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2022
    Article
  15. A novel nomogram and a simple scoring system for urinary leakage after percutaneous nephrolithotomy.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    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

8 authors.

Kehua JiangDepartment of Urology, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang, China.
Fa SunDepartment of Urology, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang, China. sfgmc@sina.com.
Jianguo ZhuDepartment of Urology, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang, China.
Guangheng LuoDepartment of Urology, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang, China.
Peng ZhangDepartment of Urology, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang, China.
Yong BanDepartment of Urology, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang, China.
Gang ShanDepartment of Urology, Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital, Guiyang, China.
Changxiang LiuDepartment of Urology, The Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou medical University, Guiyang, China.

Funding

Doctoral Foundation of Guizhou Provincial People's Hospital 2019Natural Science Foundation of Fujian Province (CN) [2018]5764-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical studies assessing the feasibility and accuracy of three stone scoring systems's (SSSs: Guy's stone score, CROES nomogram and S.T.O.N.E nephrolithometry scoring system) have reported contradictory outcomes. This systematic evaluation was performed to obtain comprehensive evidence with regard to the feasibility and accuracy of three SSSs.

methodsA systematic search of Embase, Pubmed, Medline, and the Cochrane Library was conducted to identify studies that compared three SSSs up to Mar 2018. Patients were categorized according to stone free (SF) and no-stone free (NSF), Outcomes of interest included perioperative variables, stone-free rate (SFR), and complications.

resultsTen studies estimating three SSSs were included for meta-analysis. The results showed that SF patients had a significantly lower proportion of male (OR = 1.48, P = 0.0007), lower stone burden (WMD = -504.28, P < 0.0001), fewer No of involved calyces (OR = -1.23, P = 0.0007) and lower proportion of staghorn stone (OR = 0.33, P < 0.0001). Moreover, SF patients had significantly lower score of Guy score (WMD = -0.64, P < 0.0001), but, S.T.O.N.E. score (WMD = -1.23, P < 0.0001) and a higher score of CROES nomogram (WMD = 29.48, P = 0.003). However, the comparison of area under curves (AUC) of predicting SFR indicated that there was no remarkable difference between three SSSs. Nonetheless, Guy score was the only stone scoring system that predicted complications after PCNL (WMD = -0.29, 95% CI: - 0.57 to - 0.02, P = 0.03).

conclusionsOur meta-analysis indicated that the three SSSs were equally, feasible and accurate for predicting SFR after PCNL. However, Guy score was the only stone scoring system that predicted complications after PCNL.

Indexed as

Severity of Illness IndexHumansKidney CalculiNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousPostoperative ComplicationsPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesCROES nomogramGuy’s scoreMeta-analysisStone free rateS.T.O.N.E. score

Identifiers

PMID31262284
PMCPMC6604199

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.