ArticleUrolithiasis2025
Validation of the STONE and new STONE score for ureteral stones in elderly patients: a retrospective cohort study.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ureteral stones are a common cause of emergency department visits. However, their presentation in older adults may be atypical. As the global population ages, effective and low-risk diagnostic strategies are increasingly vital to improve patient outcomes, reduce radiation exposure, and lower healthcare costs. This retrospective cohort study conducted between January 2020 and December 2024. We aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of the STONE and New STONE scores in detecting ureteral stones among patients aged 60 and older presenting with flank pain. A total of 161 patients who underwent abdominal computed tomography (CT) were included, with ureteral stones detected in 48.4%. Patients with stones had significantly higher STONE (8.7 ± 2.0 vs. 6.1 ± 1.9) and New STONE scores (5.0 ± 1.9 vs. 2.7 ± 1.6) compared to patients without stone (p < 0.001 for both). The STONE score showed an AUC of 0.830 and the New STONE score 0.829. A cut-off STONE score > 5 yielded 97.4% sensitivity, while a cut-off > 9 provided 88.0% specificity. For the New STONE score, a cut-off > 3 offered 89.7% sensitivity, and a cut-off > 6 showed 97.6% specificity. Both scores demonstrated reliable diagnostic accuracy in elderly patients. The STONE score favored sensitivity, while the New STONE score favored specificity. Our findings suggest that these scoring systems may support imaging decision-making and contribute to reducing unnecessary CT exposure and healthcare costs in older adults with suspected ureteral stones.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40886201What 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.