ReviewCentral European journal of urology2022
Recent scoring systems predicting stone-free status after retrograde intrarenal surgery; a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Central European journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors Associated with Uncomplicated Single-Session Stone-Free Status After Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery for Large Renal Stones.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Prediction of Residual Fragments After Flexible Ureteroscopic Stone Management: A Critical Evaluation Based on Patient- and Stone-Related Parameters.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- External validation of Ito's nomogram and T.O.HO. scoring system in flexible ureterorenoscopy.BMC urology · 2024Article
- New infundibulopelvic angle measurement method can predict stone-free rates following retrograde intrarenal surgery.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Predicting stone free rate after retrograde intrarenal surgery using RIRS scoring system versus Resorlu Unsal stone score (RUSS).Arab journal of urology · 2024Article
- Residual fragment size following retrograde intrarenal surgery: a critical evaluation of related variables.Urolithiasis · 2023Article
- Article
- Pelvic stone angle as a novel parameter for predicting stone-free rates after RIRS: A retrospective comparative analysis with established scoring systems-AUSET collaboration.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Several scoring systems and nomograms have been developed to predict the success of retrograde intrarenal surgery. But no meta-analysis for the performance of scoring systems has yet been performed. The aim of this study was to compare predictive ability of recent scoring systems for stone-free rate of retrograde intrarenal surgery. Material and methods: PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched systematically between April and May 2021. The scoring systems which were validated externally or studied at least by two different researcher groups were selected for further analysis. Of 59 records, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria (n = 4137). Area under curve (AUC) values of selected scoring systems were pooled in random or fixed effects. The I Results: Eight, 5, 8, 4 and 3 studies included in meta-analyses for the modified Seoul National University Renal Stone Complexity Score (S-ReSC), R.I.R.S., Resorlu-Unsal Score (RUS), S.T.O.N.E., and Ito's Nomogram, respectively. We found pooled AUC values 0.709 (95% CI 0.670-0.748), 0.704 (95% CI 0.668-0.739), 0.669 (95% CI 0.646 to 0.692), and 0.771 (95% CI 0.724 to 0.818), for first four of them, respectively. Heterogeneity was very high to pool AUC values for Ito's nomogram. Conclusions: Although S.T.O.N.E. score showed higer pooled AUC value, this systematic review and meta-analysis has not revealed superiority of any scoring system. High heterogeneity between studies and dependencies between scoring systems make it difficult to design a comparative statistical model to generalize the findings. Also, limitations aside, neither scoring system has demonstrated good predictive/discriminative performance.
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.