ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2023
Development of a novel mesh model to define a new index "amount of stone" to evaluate calculus and predicting the lithotripsy time.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveDevelop a mesh model to define a new "index amount of stone" to evaluate calculus and predict lithotripsy time.
methodsThe stones were divided into target units with diameter of 5 mm by the mesh from x, y and z directions, and the cross-sectional areas between units were calculated as amount of stone as a new index to evaluate calculus. Design a prospective study with 112 cases of percutaneous nephrolithotomy to verify the reliability of this index, and to compare the accuracy of the quantity, volume and maximum diameter of stones in predicting the time of lithotripsy.
resultsAmount of stone (Q) is reliable. The lithotripsy time was significantly correlated with the amount of stone, volume and maximum diameter of the stone (p < 0.01). The three regression equations were valid. The linear fit in the amount group was larger than that in the volume group, and further larger than that in the maximum diameter group, with R
conclusionsIt is more accurate and convenient to use amount of stone to evaluate calculus, which can be used to predict the lithotripsy time.
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.