ArticleTomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.)2025
Can Clinical Scores Reduce CT Use in Renal Colic? A Head-to-Head Comparison.
Article in Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.), 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.
- Can resident-performed POCUS and clinical predictors effectively risk-stratify emergency department patients with confirmed renal colic?International journal of emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Serum and Urine GDF-15 Levels in Patients with Ureteral Stones.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
objectiveNon-contrast computed tomography (CT) remains the gold standard for diagnosing ureteral stones, with excellent sensitivity and specificity. However, reliance on CT alone raises concerns regarding cumulative radiation exposure, particularly in recurrent stone formers. Clinical scoring systems such as CHOKAI, STONE, and modified STONE have been developed to provide practical bedside tools for diagnostic decision-making. This study prospectively compared these three clinical scores for their ability to predict urinary-stone disease in the emergency department. STUDY
designProspective study. Methods and Duration of the Study: Between 6 August 2024 and 15 February 2025, 130 consecutively enrolled adults with flank pain underwent bedside scoring and reference-standard non-contrast CT. Associations were analysed with Chi-Square Tests and multivariable logistic regression. Model calibration was assessed with the Hosmer-Lemeshow test; overall accuracy was calculated.
resultsWhen the variables used in different stone scoring formulas were compared according to the computer tomography results, there was a statistically significant difference (
conclusionsIn this Turkish cohort, CHOKAI and modified STONE demonstrated superior predictive performance compared to the original STONE score. These findings suggest that clinical scoring systems, when incorporating predictors such as nausea, prior stone history, and hydronephrosis, may serve as practical alternatives to CT-first diagnostic approaches. Multicenter validation studies are required before routine clinical adoption.
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.