ArticleBMC urology2020
CT, US and MRI of xanthine urinary stones: in-vitro and in-vivo analyses.
Article in BMC urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundXanthine urinary stones are a rare entity that may occur in patients with Lesch-Nyhan syndrome receiving allopurinol. There is little literature describing imaging characteristics of these stones, and the most appropriate approach to imaging these stones is therefore unclear. We performed in-vitro and in-vivo analyses of xanthine stones using computed tomography (CT) at different energy levels, ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
methodsFive pure xanthine stones from a child with Lesch-Nyhan were imaged in-vitro and in-vivo. CT of the stones was performed at 80 kVp, 100 kVp, 120 kVp and 140 kVp and CT numbers of the stones were recorded in Hounsfield units (HU). US of the stones was performed and echogenicity, acoustic shadowing and twinkle artifact were assessed. MRI of the stones was performed and included T2-weighted, ultrashort echo-time-weighted and T2/T1-weighted 3D bFFE sequences and signal was assessed.
resultsIn-vitro analysis on CT demonstrated that xanthine stones were radiodense and the average attenuation coefficient did not differ with varying kVp, measuring 331.0 ± 51.7 HU at 80 kVp, 321.4 ± 63.4 HU at 100 kVp, 329.7 ± 54.2 HU at 120 kVp and 328.4 ± 61.1 HU at 140 kVp. In-vivo analysis on CT resulted in an average attenuation of 354 ± 35 HU. On US, xanthine stones where echogenic with acoustic shadowing and twinkle artifact. On MRI, stones lacked signal on all tested sequences.
conclusionXanthine stone analyses, both in-vitro and in-vivo, demonstrate imaging characteristics typical of most urinary stones: dense on CT, echogenic on US, and lacking signal on MRI. Therefore, the approach to imaging xanthine stones should be comparable to that of other urinary stones.
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.