Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39037610›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2024

Comparison of automated kidney stone size measurement and volumetry in photon counting CT compared to 3rd generation dual energy CT and physically measurements - an ex vivo study.

Tim Nestler, Rico Stoll, Hans Schmelz, Justine Schoch, Albrecht Hesse, Kai Nestler, Kerstin Smolka, Sebastian Faby, Markus Jürgens, Bernhard Schmidt and 3 more

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Tim Nestler *Department of Urology, Federal Armed Services Hospital Koblenz, Ruebenacherstr. 170, Koblenz, 56072, Germany. tim-nestler@web.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6033-6364
Rico Stoll *Department of Urology, Federal Armed Services Hospital Koblenz, Ruebenacherstr. 170, Koblenz, 56072, Germany.
Hans SchmelzDepartment of Urology, Federal Armed Services Hospital Koblenz, Ruebenacherstr. 170, Koblenz, 56072, Germany.
Justine SchochDepartment of Urology, Federal Armed Services Hospital Koblenz, Ruebenacherstr. 170, Koblenz, 56072, Germany.
Albrecht HesseDepartment of Urology, Urinary Stone Analysis Centre Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Kai NestlerDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Federal Armed Services Hospital Koblenz, Koblenz, Germany.
Kerstin SmolkaDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Federal Armed Services Hospital Koblenz, Koblenz, Germany.
Sebastian FabyDepartment of Computed Tomography, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Forchheim, Germany.
Markus JürgensDepartment of Computed Tomography, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Forchheim, Germany.
Bernhard SchmidtDepartment of Computed Tomography, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Forchheim, Germany.
Katja SpornitzDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Federal Armed Services Hospital Koblenz, Koblenz, Germany.
Daniel OverhoffDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Federal Armed Services Hospital Koblenz, Koblenz, Germany.
Stephan WaldeckDepartment of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Federal Armed Services Hospital Koblenz, Koblenz, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis ex vivo study aimed to compare a newly developed dual-source photon-counting CT (PCCT) with a 3rd generation dual-source dual-energy CT (DECT) for the detection and measurement (stone lengths and volumetrics) of urinary stones.

methods143 urinary stones with a known geometry were physically measured and defined as reference values. Next, urinary stones were placed in an anthropomorphic abdomen-model and were scanned with DECT and PCCT. Images were read by two experienced examiners and automatically evaluated using a specific software.

resultsDECT and PCCT showed a high sensitivity for manual stone detection of 97.9% and 94.4%, and for automatic detection of 93.0% and 87.4%, respectively. Compared to that uric acid and xanthine stones were recognized slightly worse by DECT and PCCT with manual stone detection (93.3% and 82.2%), and with automatic detection (77.8% and 60.0%). All other stone entities were completely recognized. By comparing the maximum diameter of the reference value and DECT, Pearson-correlation was 0.96 (p < 0.001) for manual and 0.97 (p < 0.001) for automatic measurement, and for PCCT it was 0.94 (p < 0.001) for manual and 0.97 (p < 0.001) for automatic measurements. DECT and PCCT can also reliably determine volume manually and automatically with a Pearson-correlation of 0.99 (p < 0.001), respectively.

conclusionBoth CTs showed comparable results in stone detection, length measurement and volumetry compared to the reference values. Automatic measurement tends to underestimate the maximum diameter. DECT proved to be slightly superior in the recognition of xanthine and uric acid stones.

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiTomography, X-Ray ComputedHumansPhotonsUric AcidUric AcidAutomated volumetryComputed tomographyKidney stonePhoton counting CTThird generation CTUrolithiasis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.