Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33029417›Full record

ArticleArab journal of urology2019

Inter-observer variability amongst surgeons and radiologists in assessment of Guy's Stone Score and S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry score: A prospective evaluation.

Aneesh Srivastava, Priyank Yadav, Kumar Madhavan, Sanjoy K Sureka, Uday P Singh, Rakesh Kapoor, M S Ansari, Hira Lal, Prabhakar Mishra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Arab journal of urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Predicting the Stone-Free Status of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy with the Machine Learning System.International journal of nephrology and renovascular disease · 2023
    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

9 authors.

Aneesh SrivastavaDepartment of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.
Priyank YadavDepartment of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2509-0116
Kumar MadhavanDepartment of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9444-0271
Sanjoy K SurekaDepartment of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.
Uday P SinghDepartment of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.
Rakesh KapoorDepartment of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.
M S AnsariDepartment of Urology and Renal Transplantation, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.
Hira LalDepartment of Radiology, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2729-3902
Prabhakar MishraDepartment of Biostatistics, Sanjay Gandhi Postgraduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objective(a) To assess the inter-observer variability amongst surgeons performing percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and radiologists for the Guy's Stone Score (GSS) and S.T.O.N.E. (stone size [S], tract length [T], obstruction [O], number of involved calyces [N], and essence or stone density [E]) nephrolithometry score; (b) To determine which scoring system of the two is better for predicting the stone-free rate (SFR) after PCNL. PATIENTS SUBJECTS AND

methodsPatients undergoing PCNL between February 2016 and September 2016 were prospectively enrolled. Preoperative computed tomography was done in all patients. The GSS and S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry score were independently calculated by eight surgeons and four radiologists. The patients were operated on by one of the surgeons (all were consultants). The Fleiss' κ coefficient was used to assess agreement independently between the surgeons and radiologists. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed for predicting the SFR using the average of the scores of the surgeons and radiologists separately.

resultsA total of 157 patients underwent PCNL. The SFR was 71.3% (112/157 patients). The Fleiss' κ scores ranged from 0.51 to 0.88 (overall 0.79) for the S.T.O.N.E. score and 0.53-0.91 for the GSS, suggesting moderate to very good agreement. The ROC curve for the S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry scores of surgeons (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.806) as well as the radiologists (AUC = 0.810) had a higher predictive value for the SFR than the GSS of the surgeons (AUC = 0.738) and the radiologists (AUC = 0.747).

conclusionThere is overall good agreement between surgeons and radiologists for both the GSS and S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry score. The S.T.O.N.E. score had a higher predictive value for the SFR than the GSS. ABBREVIATIONS: AUC: area under the curve; GSS: Guy's Stone Score; KUB: kidneys, ureters and bladder; NCCT: non-contrast CT; PCNL: Percutaneous nephrolithotomy; ROC: receiver operating characteristic; SFR: stone-free rate; S.T.O.N.E.: stone size [S], tract length [T], obstruction [O], number of involved calyces [N], and essence or stone density [E].

Indexed as

Guy’s Stone ScoreInter-observer variabilityS.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry score

Identifiers

PMID33029417
PMCPMC7473116

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.