ArticleUrology annals
Predictors of forniceal rupture in patients with obstructing ureteral calculi: Analysis of multicenter data.
Article in Urology annals. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Renal forniceal rupture (FR) is a unique complication of obstructive uropathy. This study aimed to identify the predictors of FR among patients presenting with renal colic due to obstructing ureteral calculi. Materials and Methods: After obtaining ethics approval, electronic records of patients from three National Guard hospitals in Saudi Arabia were reviewed between 2016 and 2020 to identify patients who presented with renal colic and were diagnosed with FR due to obstructive ureteric stones (FR group). An equivalent number of consecutive patients presenting with renal colic due to obstructing ureteric stones without FR was selected as a control group (non-FR group). Patients were grouped according to age group (<30, 30-40, 41-50, and >50 years), body mass index (BMI) class, gender, comorbidities, grade of hydronephrosis, location of the stone in the ureter, size of the stone (<3 mm, 3-7 mm, and >7 mm), and stone former status. Baseline patients' and stone characteristics were compared, and a regression analysis was performed to identify predictors of FR. Results: A total of 50 patients with FR were identified, and a control group of 50 patients without FR were selected. The baseline patients' and stone demographic characteristics in terms of age ( Conclusion: This multicenter study showed that the stone size 3-7 mm had a six-fold increase in the chance of FR, and the age group between 30 and 40 years is potentially at a lower risk for FR.
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.