ArticleUrology annals
Use of artificial stones in training and laboratory studies, have we found the right material? Outcomes of a systematic review from the European School of Urology.
Article in Urology annals. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Holmium: YAG Popcorn Lithotripsy-In Vitro Comparison of Settings and MOSES Across Stone Densities.Advances in urology · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: In this review, we investigated the current literature to find out which artificial stones (AS) are available in endourology, and in which experimental and training schemes they are used. Materials and Methods: A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Twenty-one out of 346 studies met our inclusion criteria and are presented in the current review. The inclusion criteria were the existence of AS and their use for laboratory and training studies. Results: There is a wide variety of materials used for the creation of AS. BegoStone powder (BEGO USA, Lincoln, Rhode Island) and plaster of Paris™ were used in most of the studies. In addition, Ultracal-30 (U. S. Gypsum, Chicago, IL) was also used. Other materials that were used as phantoms were AS created from plaster (Limbs and Things, UK), standardized artificial polygonal stone material (Chaton 1028, PP13, Jet 280; Swarovski), model stones consisting of spheres of activated aluminum (BASF SE, Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Deutschland), Orthoprint (Zhermack, Badia Polesine, Italy), and a combination of plaster of Paris, Portland cement, and Velmix (calcium sulfate powder). Many experimental settings have been conducted with the use of AS. Our research demonstrated nine studies regarding testing and comparison of holmium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser devices, techniques, and settings. Six studies were about extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy testing and settings. Three experiments looked into treatment with percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Additionally, one study each investigated imaging perioperatively for endourological interventions, stone bacterial burden, and obstructive uropathy. Conclusion: AS have been used in a plethora of laboratory experimental studies. Independent of their similarity to real urinary tract stones, they present a tremendous potential for testing and training for endourological interventions.
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.