ArticleAmerican journal of clinical and experimental urology2025
Evaluating blood and urinary markers for prediction of spontaneous ureteral stone passage.
Article in American journal of clinical and experimental urology, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe predictive value of blood and serum markers for spontaneous ureteral stone passage (SSP) has been investigated, with no substantial conclusion about their reliability. Therefore, we aim to evaluate the predictive potential of blood and urine laboratory tests for ureteral stone passage.
methodsThis prospective, single-center observational study included patients with a solitary obstructing ureteral stone <10 mm diagnosed via non-contrast computerized tomography (NCCT). Definition for SSP was strict including physical evidence of stone passage, follow-up NCCT, or ureteroscopy, and patients were followed until stone passage or urologic intervention occurred. Blood and urine markers, including white blood cells count (WBC), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), creatinine, calculated glomerular filtration rates, urine leukocyte esterase and nitrates were collected. Univariate analysis, multivariate analysis, and receiver operating characteristic curves were performed to assess the association between markers and SSP.
resultsCohort consisted of 165 participants who met the inclusion and exclusion criteria with adequate data collection and follow-up. Median age was 54 years with a male to female ratio of 11:5. Most stones were in the mid-distal ureter (56%) and median stone size was 3.5 mm. SSP was observed in 87 patients (53%). None of the blood or urine markers demonstrated a significant association with SSP, and areas under the curves were poor and insignificant. Smaller stone size and distal location significantly predicted SSP.
conclusionsRoutine blood and urine markers are not associated with SSP, and their contribution to SSP nomograms might be negligible. These negative results may redirect providers' focus to other factors when predicting SSP.
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.