ArticleScientific reports2022
A machine learning model for predicting surgical intervention in renal colic due to ureteral stone(s) < 5 mm.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence in urolithiasis: a systematic review of utilization and effectiveness.World journal of urology · 2024Pooled it
- Determinants of treatment pathway in renal colic: a size-stratified analysis from the emergency department of a tertiary center.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
- Observational
- Risk factors and prediction model for stone mucosa adhesion before retrograde intrarenal surgery.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2025Article
- Two novel deep-learning models to predict spontaneous ureteral calculi passage: Model development and validation.Current urology · 2024Article
- Applying urinary ultrasound to predict the risk of spontaneous ureteral stone passage: a retrospective cohort study.BMC urology · 2024Article
- Prediction of spontaneous distal ureteral stone passage using artificial intelligence.International urology and nephrology · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A 75-89% expulsion rate is reported for ureteric stones ≤ 5 mm. We explored which parameters predict justified surgical intervention in cases of pain caused by < 5 mm ureteral stones. We retrospectively reviewed all patients with renal colic caused by ureteral stone < 5 mm admitted to our urology department between 2016 and 2021. Data on age, sex, body mass index, the presence of associated hydronephrosis/stranding on images, ureteral side, stone location, medical history, serum blood count, creatinine, C-reactive protein, and vital signs were obtained upon admission. XGboost (XG), a machine learning model has been implemented to predict the need for intervention. A total of 471 patients (median age 49, 83% males) were reviewed. 74% of the stones were located in the distal ureter. 160 (34%) patients who sustained persistent pain underwent surgical intervention. The operated patients had proximal stone location (56% vs. 10%, p < 0.001) larger stones (4 mm vs. 3 mm, p < 0.001), longer length of stay (3.5 vs. 3 days, p < 0.001) and more emergency-room (ER) visits prior to index admission (2 vs. 1, p = 0.007) compared to those who had no surgical intervention. The model accuracy was 0.8. Larger stone size and proximal location were the most important features in predicting the need for intervention. Altogether with pulse and ER visits, they contributed 73% of the final prediction for each patient. Although a high expulsion rate is expected for ureteral stones < 5 mm, some may be painful and drawn out in spontaneous passage. Decision-making for surgical intervention can be facilitated by the use of the present prediction model.
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.