Ureteral Wall Thickness Measurement and Spontaneous Stone Passage A Narrative Review.

Andrei D Cumpanas, Thao N Vu, Candices M Tran, Roshan M Patel

Abstract readReview

In one paragraph

Review in Current urology reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

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

4 authors.

Andrei D CumpanasDepartment of Urology, University of California Irvine, Orange, CA, USA.

Thao N VuDepartment of Urology, University of California Irvine, Orange, CA, USA.

Candices M TranDepartment of Urology, University of California Irvine, Orange, CA, USA.

Roshan M PatelDepartment of Urology, University of California Irvine, Orange, CA, USA. roshanmp@hs.uci.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThere is a high number of acute renal colic cases that present to the emergency department, and it is crucial to have reliable parameters that can accurately predict the likelihood of spontaneous stone passage. In this narrative review, we examined the latest data from the literature regarding the relationship between ureteral wall thickness and the probability of spontaneous stone passage. RECENT

findingsThe thickness of a normal ureteral wall ranges between 0.95 and 2 mm, with an increase in thickness observed with advancing age. Current data suggests that thinner ureteral wall thickness may favor the spontaneous stone passage. However, the discrepancy between data from the literature is mainly caused by the small study cohorts, heterogeneous protocols, and the intra- and interobserver variability in evaluating non-contrast computed tomography results. There remains a need to better understand the mechanisms behind stone expulsion, as current models rely on oversimplified assumptions about the ureter's biomechanical properties.

Indexed as

Renal ColicUreterUreteral CalculiHumansRemission, SpontaneousTomography, X-Ray ComputedComputed tomographyNephrolithiasisRenal colicStone passageUreteral wall thickness

Identifiers

PMID40377770

DOI10.1007/s11934-025-01270-8

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.