ArticleEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2025
Can we predict the presence of struvite stones based on clinical factors?
Article in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate whether clinical, laboratory, and radiological data could effectively identify struvite stones without the need for crystallographic analysis.
methodsStone fragments obtained using endourological procedures were subjected to crystallographic analysis. A prospective evaluation and comparison were conducted between patients with and without struvite stones. Sex, age, comorbidities, Hounsfield Unit Coefficient, stone size, urine culture, and urinary pH were analyzed.
resultsAmong the 221 stones enrolled, 18% were struvite. Among patients with struvite stones, 95% were women, whereas in the group without struvite stones, 51% were women. The average age was 40.6 years among patients with struvite stones, and 51.5 years in the other group (p<0.001). The stone size in the struvite group (24.9 mm) was significantly larger than that in the non-struvite group (15.6 mm) (p<0.001). The urinary pH was significantly higher in the struvite group than in the non-struvite group (p<0.001). Patients with a positive urine culture had a 3.78 times greater chance of having a struvite stone than those with a negative urine culture (p<0.01). Multivariate analysis considering pH, age, and stone size yielded an AUC value of 0.83, sensitivity of 0.39, specificity of 0.95, and accuracy of 0.85. There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the Hounsfield Unit Coefficient and comorbidities.
conclusionOur analysis further supports the conclusion that characteristics such as pH, age, stone size, and urine culture have notable specificity but low sensitivity for identifying struvite stones.
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.