SynthesisCurrent urology reports2023
Role of Hounsfield Unit in Predicting Outcomes of Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Renal Calculi: Outcomes of a Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Current urology reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Role of Hounsfield Unit in Predicting Outcomes of Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Renal Calculi: Outcomes of a Systematic Review.Current urology reports · 2023Pooled it
- Factors associated with digital flexible ureteroscopy management in kidney stone treatment: a prospective study.Surgery in practice and science · 2026Article
- Preoperative CT-Derived Stone Burden Metrics for Predicting Stone-Free Status and Operative Time After Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Recognizing uric acid type of urinary stones by deep learning.Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- Hyperoxaluria: Diagnosis and Treatment.The Urologic clinics of North America · 2025Review
- Optimal stone density for ablation lithotripsy with vapor tunnel Ho:YAG pulse modality.International urology and nephrology · 2025Article
- Numerical study of cavitation shock wave emission in the thin liquid layer by power ultrasonic vibratory machining.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Assessment of pancreatic ductal stone density on non-contrast computed tomography for predicting the outcome of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.Endoscopy international open · 2024Article
- Advancements in stone classification: unveiling the beauty of urolithiasis.World journal of urology · 2024Review
- Assessment of Hounsfield Units and Factors Associated with Fragmentation of Renal Stones by Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy: A Computerized Tomography Study.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewExtracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy success rates depend on several stone and patient-related factors, one of which is stone density which is calculated on computed tomography scan in Hounsfield Units. Studies have shown inverse correlation between SWL success and HU; however, there remains considerable variation between studies. We performed a systematic review regarding the use of HU in SWL for renal calculi to consolidate the current evidence and address current knowledge gaps. RECENT
findingsDatabase including MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched from inception through August 2022. Studies in English language analysing stone density/attenuation in adult patients undergoing SWL for renal calculi were included for assessment of Shockwave lithotripsy outcomes, use of stone attenuation to predict success, use of mean and peak stone density and Hounsfield unit density, determination of optimum cut-off values, nomograms/scoring systems, and assessment of stone heterogeneity. 28 studies with a total of 4,206 patients were included in this systematic review with sample size ranging from 30 to 385 patients. Male to female ratio was 1.8, with an average age of 46.3 years. Mean overall ESWL success was 66.5%. Stone size ranged from 4 to 30 mm in diameter. Mean stone density was used by two-third of the studies to predict the appropriate cut-off for SWL success, ranging from 750 to 1000 HU. Additional factors such as peak HU and stone heterogeneity index were also evaluated with variable results. Stone heterogeneity index was considered a better indicator for success in larger stones (cut-off value of 213) and predicting SWL stone clearance in one session. Prediction scores had been attempted, with researchers looking into combining stone density with other factors such as skin to stone distance, stone volume, and differing heterogeneity indices with variable results. Numerous studies demonstrate a link between shockwave lithotripsy outcomes and stone density. Hounsfield unit < 750 has been found to be associated with shockwave lithotripsy success, with likelihood of failure strongly associated with values over 1000. Prospective standardisation of Hounsfield unit measurement and predictive algorithm for shockwave lithotripsy outcome should be considered to strengthen future evidence and help clinicians in the decision making.
trial registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database: CRD42020224647.
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.