ArticleJournal of acute medicine2022
Use of STONE Score to Predict Urolithiasis in an Asian Emergency Department.
Article in Journal of acute medicine, 2022. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validation of the STONE and new STONE score for ureteral stones in elderly patients: a retrospective cohort study.Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- Evaluation of STONE, modified STONE, and CHOKAI scores for predicting ureteric stone disease in Indian emergency patients: A prospective observational study.Turkish journal of emergency medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The STONE score was developed to predict uncomplicated ureteral stones in patients so that they can be managed without imaging. Validation studies had been conducted previously but the results were varied. This study aims to investigate the utility of the STONE score in an emergency department in Singapore. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the records of adult patients presenting with ureteric colic in the emergency department in 2015. STONE score as well as the proportion of urolithiasis diagnosed on advanced imaging in each STONE score group were calculated. Logistic regression was used to calculate the odds ratios (ORs) for the STONE score components in our study and compared with the ORs obtained in the original study. Measures of diagnostic accuracy for a high STONE score were also calculated. Results: 753 cases were included in the final analysis. Among patients with a high STONE score, 66.7% had urolithiasis and 2.6% had significant alternative diagnoses. Compared to original studies, ORs for the STONE score components obtained for our study were different. From our study, the sensitivity of a high STONE score was 47.0%, specificity was 68.7%, positive predictive value was 66.7%, negative predictive value was 49.3%, positive likelihood ratio was 1.50, and negative likelihood ratio was 0.77. Conclusion: The STONE score is not expected to perform well in Singapore based on our study. It should be used with caution in similar Asian populations.
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.