ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2022
Does volume matter? Incorporating estimated stone volume in a nomogram to predict ureteral stone passage.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predictive value of neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio for the clinical outcome of patients with ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC urology · 2026Pooled it
- Neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio in urolithiasis: a systematic review.BMC urology · 2025Pooled it
- Analyzing learning curve for supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy in urology resident training programme: comparative analysis.Urolithiasis · 2024Article
- A machine learning approach using stone volume to predict stone-free status at ureteroscopy.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Software-Estimated Stone Volume Is Better Predictor of Spontaneous Passage for Acute Nephrolithiasis.Journal of endourology · 2023Article
- Article
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 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRecent studies have shown that software-generated 3D stone volume calculations are better predictors of stone burden than measured maximal axial stone diameter. However, no studies have assessed the role of formula estimated stone volume, a more practical and less expensive alternative to software calculations, to predict spontaneous stone passage (SSP).
methodsWe retrospectively included patients discharged from our emergency department on conservative treatment for ureteral stone (≤10 mm). We collected patient demographics, comorbidities, and laboratory tests. Using non-contrast computed tomography (CT) reports, stone width, length, and depth (w, l, d, respectively) were used to estimate stone volumes using the ellipsoid formula: V=ϖ*l*w*d*0.167. Using a backward conditional regression, two models were developed incorporating either estimated stone volume or maximal axial stone diameter. A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed and the area under the curve (AUC) was computed and compared to the other model.
resultsWe included 450 patients; 243 patients (54%) had SSP and 207 patients (46%) failed SSP. The median calculated stone volume was significantly smaller among patients with SSP: 25 (14-60) mm
conclusionsWe present a nomogram incorporating stone volume to better predict SSP. Stone volume estimated using an ellipsoid formula can predict SSP better than maximal axial diameter.
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.