ArticleJournal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open2024
Construction and performance of a clinical prediction rule for ureteral stone without the use of race or ethnicity: A new STONE score.
Article in Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open, 2024. 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.
- Validation of the STONE and new STONE score for ureteral stones in elderly patients: a retrospective cohort study.Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- Construction and performance of a clinical prediction rule for ureteral stone without the use of race or ethnicity: A new STONE score.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2024Article
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
Abstract
Objectives: The original STONE score was designed to predict the presence of uncomplicated renal colic and the corresponding absence of alternate serious etiologies. It was retrospectively derived and prospectively validated and resulted in five variables: Sex (male gender), Timing (acute onset of pain), "Origin" (non-Black race), Nausea/vomiting (present), and Erythrocytes (microscopic hematuria). With recent increased awareness of the potential adverse impacts of including race (a socially constructed identity) in clinical prediction rules, we sought to determine if a revised STONE score without race could be constructed with similar diagnostic accuracy. Methods: We used data from the original STONE score that utilized retrospective data on patients with confirmed kidney stone by computed tomography (CT) to derive a clinical prediction rule as well as prospective data to validate the score. These data were used to construct a revised STONE score after removing race as a variable. We performed univariate and multivariable logistic regression and compared the old and new STONE scores (including multivariable, integral, and three-level risk) using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and misclassification rates. Results: After the elimination of race, multivariable logistic regression revealed that gross hematuria was the next strongest feasible variable for the prediction of ureteral stone. This was incorporated into a revised STONE score by substituting "obvious hematuria" for "origin" (formerly race). The revised STONE score had similar predictive accuracy to the original STONE score: AUC 0.85 versus 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.82-0.87 and 0.79-0.93); misclassification rates were also unchanged, 0.23 versus 0.23 (95% CI: 0.20-0.25 and 0.20-0.25). Conclusions: We modified the STONE score to remove race and include "obvious hematuria" without losing clinical accuracy. Considering the potential adverse effects of propagating racial bias in clinical algorithms, we recommend using the revised STONE score. Future research could investigate the potential contributions of social drivers of health (SDOH) to the diagnosis of kidney stone.
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.