ReviewEuropean urology open science2025
Which Measure of Stone Burden is the Best Predictor of Interventional Outcomes in Urolithiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis by the YAU Urolithiasis Working Group and EAU Urolithiasis Guidelines Panel.
Review in European urology open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Retrograde intrarenal surgery with flexible and navigable suction access sheaths vs mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large upper urinary tract stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BJU international · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Methodology of peri-operative imaging data reporting for stone disease: a systematic review toward the development of a novel checklist-iSTAR.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Preoperative CT-Derived Stone Burden Metrics for Predicting Stone-Free Status and Operative Time After Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- From conventional imaging software to artificial intelligence: tools for stone volume assessment in urolithiasis. Α review by the EAU and YAU sections of endourology.World journal of urology · 2026Review
- When stones grow: a practical guide from EAU endourology to changes in volume with increasing size.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Is 3 cm the upper limit of stone size for effective steerable ureteroscopic renal stone evacuation?World journal of urology · 2026Observational
- Investigation of current markers in predicting forgotten ureteral stent encrustation, accompanied by KUB, V-GUES and fecal scoring. here is the dilemma: does every forgotten stent become encrusted?World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Albumin-to-Globulin Ratio as a Predictor of Disease Severity in Emergency Department Patients Presenting with Flank Pain.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- A novel nomogram for predicting stone-free status after retrograde intrarenal surgery in patients with kidney stones.BMC urology · 2025Article
- Post ureteroscopy stone status, comparing stone free rate and zero fragment rate - does the difference matter ?World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS) versus supine percutaneous nephrolithotomy (S-PCNL): a propensity score matched study of surgical outcomes and complications.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Radiation exposure in flexible ureteroscopy with a flexible and navigable suction ureteral access sheath: A European Association of Urology-Endourology multicenter study.Asian journal of urology · 2025Article
- Stone volume instead of maximum stone diameter: results from an international survey.BJU international · 2025Article
- Residual fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy: is it mandatory to treat them all?Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- Accurate and efficient stone volume measurement on macOS: a guide to free software solutions using Horos.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective: Stone size has traditionally been measured in one dimension. This is reflected in most of the literature and in the EAU guidelines. However, recent studies have shown that multidimensional measures provide better prediction of outcomes. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prognostic accuracy of measures of stone size (PROSPERO reference CRD42022346967). We considered all studies reporting prognostic accuracy statistics on any intervention for kidney stones (extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy [ESWL], ureterorenoscopy [URS], or percutaneous nephrolithotomy [PCNL]; Population) using multiplane measurements of stone burden (area in mm Key findings and limitations: Of 24 studies included in the review, 12 were eligible for comparative analysis with the DeLong test following meta-analysis of prognostic accuracy. For prediction of stone-free status, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) was significantly higher for stone volume than for stone size (0.71 vs 0.67; Conclusions and clinical implications: According to the limited data currently available, stone-free rates are predicted with significantly higher accuracy using multidimensional measures of stone burden in comparison to a single linear measurement. Patient summary: We reviewed different ways of measuring the size of stones in the kidney or urinary tract and compared their accuracy in predicting stone-free rates after treatment. We found that measurement of the stone area (2 dimensions) or stone volume (3 dimensions) is better than stone diameter (1 dimension) in predicting stone-free status after treatment.
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.