ArticleCanadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada2025
Limitations of ultrasound compared with computed tomography for kidney stone surveillance.
Article in Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRenal ultrasound (US) offers less radiation exposure than computed tomography (CT) for kidney stone surveillance but has lower sensitivity and specificity for nephrolithiasis diagnosis. Additionally, US may overestimate stone size, leading to unnecessary surgical interventions. Evidence on US performance for kidney stone surveillance is variable, making its clinical utility unclear. We aimed to assess US accuracy against CT and identify factors influencing US performance.
methodsWe performed a retrospective review of patients with known nephrolithiasis seen in urology clinic at Stanford who underwent both renal US and CT within 90 days for surveillance from January to December 2022. Patients with spontaneous stone passage or interventions were excluded. Stone characteristics were recorded, and statistical analysis compared the diagnostic accuracy of US and CT.
resultsA total of 107 patients and 128 stones were included, with a mean time difference of 25.7 days between US and CT. US sensitivity was 77%, with a positive predictive value (PPV) of 75% for stone detection. The PPV was only 59% for stones >4 mm by CT. Mean stone size was 8.7 mm on US vs. 5.5 mm on CT (p=0.02), with more pronounced overestimation in smaller stones and higher body mass index (BMI) (p<0.05). No significant differences in US performance were found by stone location, laterality, or time between scans. Differences in stone detection (p=0.01) and size (p=0.03) were associated with the individual performing the ultrasound.
conclusionsUS performance is limited compared to CT and is influenced by stone size, BMI, and sonographer. Overestimation by US may lead to unnecessary interventions in up to 40% of patients with stones >4 mm.
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.