Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41128779›Full record

Observational studyUrolithiasis2025

Ultrasound-CT fusion in ureteral stone Follow-Up: A prospective accuracy study benchmarked against ureteroscopy.

Ariel Zisman, Kamil Malshy, Bar Rinott, Omer Sadeh, Omri Nativ, Michael Mullerad, Eyal Bercovich

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Urolithiasis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02539004 (Ultrasound Non-contrast Computed Tomography Real-time Fusion for Urinary Stones Follow up), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02539004 completednot on this map

Ultrasound Non-contrast Computed Tomography Real-time Fusion for Urinary Stones Follow up

TypeobservationalSponsorRambam Health Care CampusRan2015 to 2022Enrolled70ConditionsUrolithiasis, UreterolithiasisArmsUltrasound study
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ariel Zisman *Department of Urology, Rambam Health Care Campus, HaAliya HaShniya St 8, Haifa, 3109601, Israel.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3583-4139
Kamil Malshy *Department of Urology, Rambam Health Care Campus, HaAliya HaShniya St 8, Haifa, 3109601, Israel. kamilmalshy@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4130-8987
Bar Rinott *Medical Imaging Department, Rambam Health Care Campus, HaAliya HaShniya St 8, Haifa, 3109601, Israel.
Omer SadehDepartment of Urology, Rambam Health Care Campus, HaAliya HaShniya St 8, Haifa, 3109601, Israel.
Omri NativDepartment of Urology, Rambam Health Care Campus, HaAliya HaShniya St 8, Haifa, 3109601, Israel.
Michael MulleradDepartment of Urology, Rambam Health Care Campus, HaAliya HaShniya St 8, Haifa, 3109601, Israel.
Eyal BercovichMedical Imaging Department, Rambam Health Care Campus, HaAliya HaShniya St 8, Haifa, 3109601, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of radiation-free ultrasound-CT (US-CT) fusion imaging for ureteral stone detection in patients scheduled for ureteroscopy (URS). In this prospective study (NCT02539004), adults with a single ureteral stone on non-contrast CT (NCCT) and scheduled for URS were consecutively enrolled. Exclusion criteria included multiple stones, pacemaker, ureteral stent, or nephrostomy tube. On the day of surgery, US-CT fusion (Logiq E9, GE Healthcare) was performed using electromagnetic tracking and prior 3D NCCT data. The primary analysis assessed sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive and negative predictive values (PPV; NPV). Secondary analyses stratified outcomes by patient and stone characteristics. Thirty-one patients were enrolled (mean age 52.2 ± 15.1 years; 71% male). Stones were upper ureter in 51% and mid-lower ureter in 49%, mean diameter 6.9 ± 2.1 mm. Twenty-nine patients (93.5%) underwent URS and were evaluable. US-CT fusion yielded 15 true positives (51.7%), 8 true negatives (27.6%), and 6 false negatives (20.7%), with no false positives. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 71.4%, 100%, 100%, 57.1%, and 79.3%, respectively. Sensitivity was highest for SSD > 10 cm (81.8%), BMI ≤ 30 (75.0%), right-sided stones (88.9%), absence of hydronephrosis (83.3%), and size > 5 mm (81.3%); and lowest for size ≤ 5 mm (40.0%) and radiolucent stones (44.4%). NPV ranged from 33.3% for SSD ≤ 10 cm to 75.0% for SSD > 10 cm and right-sided stones. US-CT fusion demonstrated excellent specificity/PPV but moderate sensitivity - useful for confirming, not excluding, stones - and may reduce repeat CT in selected patients, pending validation by larger head-to-head studies defining performance, indications, and cost-effectiveness.

Indexed as

Multimodal ImagingTomography, X-Ray ComputedUreteral CalculiUreteroscopyAdultAgedFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityUltrasonographyUreterDiagnostic accuracyRadiation-free imagingUltrasound–CT fusionUreteral stones

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.