Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39417840›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of urology2024

Artificial intelligence in urolithiasis: a systematic review of utilization and effectiveness.

Abdullah Altunhan, Selim Soyturk, Furkan Guldibi, Atinc Tozsin, Abdullatif Aydın, Arif Aydın, Kemal Sarica, Selcuk Guven, Kamran Ahmed

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

9 authors.

Abdullah AltunhanMeram School of Medicine, Urology Department, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Türkiye.
Selim SoyturkMeram School of Medicine, Urology Department, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Türkiye.
Furkan GuldibiMeram School of Medicine, Urology Department, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Türkiye.
Atinc TozsinSchool of Medicine, Urology Department, Trakya University, Edirne, Türkiye.
Abdullatif AydınDepartment of Urology, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Arif AydınMeram School of Medicine, Urology Department, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Türkiye.
Kemal SaricaDepartment of Urology, Health Sciences University, Prof. Dr. Ilhan Varank Education and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2473-1313
Selcuk GuvenMeram School of Medicine, Urology Department, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Türkiye. selcukguven@hotmail.com.
Kamran AhmedMeram School of Medicine, Urology Department, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Türkiye.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMirroring global trends, artificial intelligence advances in medicine, notably urolithiasis. It promises accurate diagnoses, effective treatments, and forecasting epidemiological risks and stone passage. This systematic review aims to identify the types of AI models utilised in urolithiasis studies and evaluate their effectiveness.

methodsThe study was registered with PROSPERO. Pubmed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for relevant literature, using keywords such as 'urology,' 'artificial intelligence,' and 'machine learning.' Only original AI studies on urolithiasis were included, excluding reviews, unrelated studies, and non-English articles. PRISMA guidelines followed.

resultsOut of 4851 studies initially identified, 71 were included for comprehensive analysis in the application of AI in urolithiasis. AI showed notable proficiency in stone composition analysis in 12 studies, achieving an average precision of 88.2% (Range 0.65-1). In the domain of stone detection, the average precision remarkably reached 96.9%. AI's accuracy rate in predicting spontaneous ureteral stone passage averaged 87%, while its performance in treatment modalities such as PCNL and SWL achieved average accuracy rates of 82% and 83%, respectively. These AI models were generally superior to traditional diagnostic and treatment methods.

conclusionThe consolidated data underscores AI's increasing significance in urolithiasis management. Across various dimensions-diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment-AI outperformed conventional methodologies. High precision and accuracy rates indicate that AI is not only effective but also poised for integration into routine clinical practice. Further research is warranted to establish AI's long-term utility and to validate its role as a standard tool in urological care.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceUrolithiasisHumansTreatment OutcomeArtificial intelligenceArtificial neural network (ANN)CNN (convolutional neural network)Deep learningMachine learningUrolithiasisUrology

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.