ArticleUrolithiasis2025
Evaluating shear wave elastography as a predictor of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy outcomes in children.
Article in Urolithiasis, 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.
- New advances in efficacy prediction of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in pediatrics: a narrative review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to demonstrate the utility of Shear Wave Elastography (SWE) in predicting the success of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) in pediatric patients. A total of 102 patients < 18 years of age with a diagnosis of kidney stones underwent ESWL between May 2021 and December 2023. SWE measurements of the stones were performed in all patients prior to ESWL. The subjects were divided into two groups: those who responded to ESWL and those who did not. Age, gender, stone location, stone size, body mass index (BMI), Hounsfield Unit (HU), and stone SWE values were compared between the groups. Among the 102 patients included in the study, 78 exhibited a positive response to ESWL. In the responder group, the SWE, HU, and stone size values were significantly lower than the non-responder group (p < 0.05). SWE exhibited significant efficacy in discriminating between responders and non-responders [area under the curve (AUC): 0.979 & p = 0.000]. A SWE cutoff value of 13.70 kPa was identified for patient differentiation [AUC:0.929 & p = 0.000]. SWE appears to be an effective method for predicting the success of ESWL in pediatric patients and may serve as an alternative parameter to HU for pre-treatment evaluation.
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.