ArticleCurrent urology2021
Is there any predictive value of the ratio of the upper to the lower diameter of the ureter for ureteral stone impaction?
Article in Current urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Measuring and analyzing objective factors of impacted ureteral stones on Non-Contrast Computed Tomography (NCCT): a retrospective case-control study.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
- Proximal/Distal ureteral diameter ratio as a predictor of spontaneous passage in <10 mm ureteral stones.The Canadian journal of urology · 2026Article
- Article
- Optimizing Fragmentation while Minimizing Thermal Injury Risk with the Thulium Fiber Laser in Ureteral Stone Lithotripsy: An In Vitro Study.Journal of endourology · 2025Article
- Predictive value of NCCT quantitative analysis for proximal and middle impacted ureteral stones.Urolithiasis · 2024Article
- Prospective observational study on the prognosis of ureteral lesions caused by impacted stones via dual-energy spectral computed tomography.Asian journal of urology · 2023Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe aimed to determine if the ratio of the upper to the lower diameter of the ureter could have any predictive value for ureteral stone impaction. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatients who had a solitary unilateral ureteric stone, determined by noncontrast computerized tomography, were assessed if they had undergone ureteroscopic lithotripsy. A total of 111 patients, 84 males (76%), and 27 females (24%), were recruited to the study. Demographic data of the patients and preoperative radiological parameters based on noncontrast computerized tomography were recorded. The impaction status was also assessed during the operation.
resultsOf the 111 patients, ureteral stones in 63 (57%) patients were determined to be impacted, and ureteral stones in 48 (43%) were nonimpacted. Impacted stones were more common in older patients, female patients, and patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of 2.
conclusionsSignificant relationships were found between the impaction status and transverse stone length, longest stone length, upper diameter of the ureter, ratio (upper diameter of the ureter/lower diameter of the ureter), and anteroposterior diameter of the pelvis. These parameters were higher in patients with impacted 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.