ReviewCurrent urology reports2020
Dual-Energy CT for Urinary Stone Evaluation.
Review in Current urology reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Brazilian Guidelines on evaluation and clinical management of Nephrolithiasis: Brazilian Society of Nephrology.Jornal brasileiro de nefrologiaGuideline
- Bladder multilithiasis across different clinical scenarios: Multimodality imaging findings, differential diagnosis, and complication assessment in 4 patients.Radiology case reports · 2026Article
- The development and internal validation of a rating scale system in predicting renal stone bacteria culture positivity before PCNL: a cross-sectional study.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
- Inconsistency in stone composition among bilateral urolithiasis patients: a multicenter retrospective study.Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- Predicting ESWL success for ureteral stones: a radiomics-based machine learning approach.BMC medical imaging · 2025Article
- What to Expect (and What Not) from Dual-Energy CT Imaging Now and in the Future?Journal of imaging · 2024Review
- Dose Optimization Using a Deep Learning Tool in Various CT Protocols for Urolithiasis: A Physical Human Phantom Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Clinical Low Dose Photon Counting CT for the Detection of Urolithiasis: Evaluation of Image Quality and Radiation Dose.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2022Article
- Urolithiasis in Germany: Trends from the National DRG Database.Urologia internationalis · 2022Article
- Urate Crystals; Beyond Joints.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewConventional CT imaging is an excellent tool for the diagnosis of nephrolithiasis however is limited in its ability to detect stone composition. Dual-energy CT (DECT) scans have demonstrated promise in overcoming this limitation. We review the current utility of DECT in nephrolithiasis. RECENT
findingsDECT is superior to conventional CT in differentiating uric acid stones from non-uric acid stones, with numerous studies reporting sensitivities and specificities approaching > 95%. Dose reduction protocols incorporating low-dose CT scans are commonly used, providing significantly lower effective radiation doses compared to conventional CT. DECT remains an effective diagnostic tool in patients with large body habitus. DECT can accurately detect uric acid stones, which can help guide which stones may be suitable to medical dissolution. Further studies evaluating the effectiveness of DECT in guiding management of patients with nephrolithiasis can help to promote its widespread use.
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.