Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31321340›Full record

ArticleTurkish journal of emergency medicine2019

A clinical prediction rule for uncomplicated ureteral stone: The STONE score; a prospective observational validation cohort study.

Arash Safaie, Mojdeh Mirzadeh, Ehsan Aliniagerdroudbari, Sepideh Babaniamansour, Alireza Baratloo

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Turkish journal of emergency medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Arash SafaiePrehospital Emergency Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mojdeh MirzadehDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Sina Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Ehsan AliniagerdroudbariSchool of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Sepideh BabaniamansourSchool of Medicine, Islamic Azad University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Alireza BaratlooPrehospital Emergency Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Sina Hospital · IRIslamic Azad University Medical Branch of Tehran · IRShahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionRenal colic is one of the most common complaints in patients admitted to Emergency Department (ED). Computed Tomography (CT) is the reference standard for the diagnosis of any stones in the kidneys or ureters. However, CT has classical disadvantages, such as radiation exposure, cost and availability. Recently, STONE clinical prediction criteria were suggested to identify uncomplicated ureteral stone cases among patiens admitted to the ED with abdominal pain. Primary objective of this study was the external validation of the STONE criteria.

methodsThis was a diagnostic accuracy study conducted on a prospective, observational cohort. All consecutive patients who underwent a non-enhanced abdominopelvic CT scan in the ED with an initial diagnosis of ureteral stone disease were enrolled. Using a pre-prepared checklist, all data and the final diagnosis according to the CT scan were recorded. STONE score was calculated for all patients. The area under the curve (AUC) of the STONE Score and the CT, the reference standard, were compared using the ROC curve analysis.

resultsTotally, 237 patients (59.9% male) with an average age of 41.54 years (SD: 13.37) were evaluated, and 156 cases (65.8%) were proved to have renal stone. The mean (SD) STONE scores in the groups of patients with renal stone and in the group of patients without renal stone group were 9.1 (2.6) and 6.0 ( 2.8), respectively (p < 0.001). The area under the curve (AUC) for the STONE score was 0.789 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.725 to 0.852). The optimum threshold value of the STONE score for the diagnosis of a renal stone was 8 or more, which had a sensitivity of 75.0% and a specificity of 70.4%.

conclusionDespite the acceptable diagnostic accuracy, further modifications and enhancements of the STONE score are needed to differentiate patients with low risk prior to imaging.

Indexed as

Clinical prediction rulesDecision support techniquesEmergency departmentRenal colicValidation studies

Identifiers

PMID31321340
PMCPMC6612622
OpenAlexW2941700358

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.