ArticleWorld journal of urology2021
Very low-dose computerized tomography for confirmation of urinary stone presence.
Article in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- A comment to "The relationship between stone-free and patient position in retrograde intrarenal surgery: a randomized prospective study".World journal of urology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine whether a modified non-contrast very low-dose computed tomography (VLD-CT) protocol is applicable for confirmation of known urolithiasis. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Consecutive adult patients with a CT scan showing urinary tract stone(s) between 6/2017-12/2018 were included. They were referred to a modified VLD-CT protocol if stone presence was equivocal or if stone location needed reassessment before an endourological interventional procedure. The scanned area was limited to the level of initial stone location caudally. Data on patients' demographics andbody mass index, were collected. The scanned length and radiation dose were calculated. Images were reviewed by two radiologists who assessed stone size and location. Follow-up reference standard included stone passage, surgical removal, and other imaging and clinical information.
resultsSixty-three patients [63 stones, mean BMI 28.7 (range 19-41.9)] were included. VLD-CTs revealed 31 stones in 31 patients, with a mean stone length of 5.5 mm. Fifteen stones remained at the same location, and 16 had migrated, of which two appeared in the bladder. Thirty-two stones were not observed on VLD-CT. The mean span scanned on the VLD-CT was 274 mm (± 80). The average radiation exposure was 1.47 mGy (range 1.09-3.3), and the absorbed dose was 0.77 mSv (range 0.39-1.43), compared to 10.24 mGy (range 1.75-28.9) and 7.87 mSv (range 1.44-18.5) in the previous scan. The mean radiation dose reduction between scans was 89%. On follow-up, all VLD-CT findings were confirmed.
conclusionA modified imaging protocol is applicable for confirmation of stone presence and location by utilizing very low-dose radiation exposure.
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.