ArticleAsian journal of urology2023
Reliability of nephrolithometric nomograms in patients treated with minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A precision study.
Article in Asian journal of urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Age-dependent predictive limitations of the MAP score in standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy.Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- Article
- Predictive value of the stone-free rate after percutaneous nephrolithotomy based on multiple machine learning models.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Integrating 3D technology with the Sampaio classification for enhanced percutaneous nephrolithotomy in complex renal calculi treatment.Frontiers in surgery · 2024Article
- The Mayo adhesive probability score predicts postoperative fever and intraoperative hemorrhage in mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy.World 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
11 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The study aimed to evaluate quality of nephrolithometric nomograms to predict stone-free rates (SFRs) and complication rates (CRs) in case of minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL). In the last decade, nomograms have been introduced to estimate the SFRs and CRs of PNL. However, no data are available regarding their reliability in case of utilization of miniaturized devices. Herein we present a prospective multicentric study to evaluate reliability of Guy's stone score (GSS), the stone size, tract length, obstruction, number of involved calyces, and essence of stone (S.T.O.N.E.) nephrolithometry score and Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society (CROES) score in patients treated with minimally invasive PNL. Methods: We evaluated SFRs and CRs of 222 adult patients treated with miniaturized PNL. Patients were considered stone-free if no residual fragments of any size at post-operative unenhanced computed tomography scan. Patients demographics, SFRs, and CRs were reported and analyzed. Performances of nomograms were evaluated with the area under the curve (AUC). Results: We included 222 patients, the AUCs of GSS, CROES score, and S.T.O.N.E. nephrolithometry score were 0.69 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.78), 0.64 (95% CI 0.56-0.73), and 0.62 (95% CI 0.52-0.71), respectively. Regarding SFRs, at multivariate binomial logistic regression, only the GSS had significance with an odds ratio of 0.53 (95% CI 0.31-0.95, Conclusion: This is the first study evaluating nomograms in miniaturized PNL. They still show good reliability; however, our data showed lower performances compared to standard PNL. We emphasize the need of further studies to confirm this trend. A dedicated nomogram for minimally invasive PNL may be necessary.
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.