ArticleBMC urology2025
Ureteral wall thickness at the ureterovesical junction as a significant factor in predicting medical expulsive therapy of ureterovesical junction stones.
Article in BMC urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate ureteral wall thickness (UWT) at the ureterovesical junction (UVJ) measured by ultrasound for predicting spontaneous passage (SP) of uncomplicated UVJ stones. PATIENTS AND
methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 170 patients ≥ 18 years old, and size ≤ 10 mm of single UVJ stone, who were examined and treated in the Third People's Hospital of Yunnan Province from January 2020 to January 2024. The analysis included the size of the stones, the maximum UWT at the stone site measured by ultrasound, the degree of hydronephrosis, and the time of stone removal.According to the different results after four weeks of medical expulsive therapy (MET), the patients were separated into two categories: Stone-passing group (SPG) and non-stone-passing group (NSPG). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were utilised to evaluate the clinical predictors of MET.The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was employed to evaluate the accuracy of the UWT at the UVJ in predicting successful MET.
resultsThe SPG comprised 112 cases (65.9%), while the NSPG consisted of 58 cases (34.2%). Univariate analysis, employing both the chi-square test and the Mann-Whitney U test, revealed that gender, age, stone side and degree of hydronephrosis were not statistically significant. However, stone size and UWT were found to be influencing factors in regard to stone removal. Binary logistic regression analysis demonstrated that UWT and size were independent influencing factor of MET. The ROC analysis indicated that 3.705 mm was the ideal threshold for UWT, with sensitivity and specificity levels of 72.4% and 68.7%, with an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.737.
conclusionsThe UWT at the UVJ has a high predictive value for the MET of stones at this position, thus avoiding the adverse consequences of delayed stone discharge caused by unnecessary surgical operation and MET.
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.