ArticleUrolithiasis2025
Impact of the Mayo adhesive probability score on ESWL outcomes for proximal ureteral stones.
Article in Urolithiasis, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the predictive value of the Mayo Adhesive Probability (MAP) score for extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) success in patients with proximal ureteral stones. We retrospectively analyzed 216 patients who underwent ESWL for isolated proximal ureteral stones between March 2020 and May 2025. Demographic and radiological parameters, including stone size, stone density, skin-to-stone distance, and MAP score, were recorded. The MAP score was calculated using non-contrast computed tomography by assessing posterior perinephric fat thickness and perinephric fat stranding. Treatment success was defined as no ureteral stone; residual fragments ≤ 4 mm were permitted only if located in the kidney after the ESWL procedure at 3-month follow-up. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of ESWL success. The overall ESWL success rate was 63%. Patients with a MAP score < 3 achieved significantly higher success rates than those with a MAP score ≥ 3 (76.9% vs. 45.3%). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, stone size > 10 mm (odds ratio [OR] 0.340, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.179-0.647), MAP score ≥ 3 (OR 0.266, 95% CI 0.140-0.507), and a prolonged interval between computed tomography and ESWL (OR 0.956, 95% CI 0.927-0.985) were identified as independent predictors of reduced success. A higher MAP score, larger stone size, and longer pre-treatment interval are associated with lower ESWL success in proximal ureteral stones. MAP scoring provides a simple, reproducible, imaging-based tool that may assist in patient selection and support treatment planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41128860What 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.