ArticleTherapeutic advances in urology
Next generation sequencing in patients with nephrolithiasis: how does it perform compared with standard urine and stone cultures?
Article in Therapeutic advances in urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pathogen distribution and risk factors of positive stone culture for patients with upper urinary tract stone.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Exploring Condition-Specific Variability in the Ureteral Stent Microbiome.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
backgroundOur aim was to compare microorganism detection between standard culture (Ctx) and next generation sequencing (NGS) in patients undergoing surgery for nephrolithiasis; we prospectively compared both urine and stone culture results using these two techniques.
methodsWe prospectively compared microorganism detection of urine and stone cultures using Ctx
resultsWe prospectively evaluated 84 patients. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of Voided Ctx predicting Stone Ctx were 66.7%, 73.7%, 54.5%, and 82.4%, respectively. Concordance of Voided Ctx microorganisms to Stone microorganisms decreased when NGS was used for the Stone compared with Ctx. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of Voided NGS to predict Stone Ctx microorganisms were 85.2%, 24.6%, 34.8%, and 77.8%, respectively. The concordance of Voided NGS to Stone microorganisms improved when the Stone was analyzed
conclusionNGS has a higher detection rate of microorganisms than standard culture for both preoperative urine and stone cultures. Voided NGS was the most sensitive in predicting a positive Stone sample, but the specificity and PPV were, overall, low. Further correlation of NGS microorganism detection with patient outcomes will determine which clinical situations may benefit most from NGS
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.