ArticleCentral European journal of urology2025
The clinical utility of urolithiasis morphology assessment for perioperative stone composition determination.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Urolithiasis is a highly prevalent disease influenced by a wide range of factors multifactorial etiology results in the formation of urinary stones with diverse mineral compositions. Accurate identification of stone constituents is crucial for effective prevention of recurrence. Gold-standard methods for stone analysis are not always readily available in clinical practice. To address this, Daudon proposed a morphological classification system aimed at identifying stone types based on their surface characteristics. However, existing literature reports suboptimal accuracy of this method, largely due to technical limitations of endoscopic equipment. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the reliability of morphological assessment in predicting stone mineral composition. Secondary aims included the identification of factors contributing to the consistently poor accuracy reported in previous studies. Material and methods: An online quiz consisting of 20 single-choice questions was developed, each accompanied by a high-resolution image of a urinary stone and five predefined answer options. The reference stone composition for each image was determined using Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. Participants' performance was evaluated based on the percentage of correct responses per individual and per question. The results of specialists and residents were compared using the two-proportion Z-test, with statistical significance set at p <0.05. Results: A total of 779 responses were collected, with an overall accuracy rate of 33.7%. The most commonly selected answers were respectively oxalates, phosphates, uric acid, cystine, and infectious stones. Subgroup analysis revealed accuracy rates of 36% among attending physicians and 32% among residents, with no statistically significant difference. Notably, two participants achieved a perfect score (100%), supporting the internal validity of the test. Conclusions: Detailed analysis revealed a wide distribution of scores, ranging from participants with only one correct response to those who completed the quiz with full accuracy. These results suggest that the consistently low diagnostic accuracy reported in the literature is more likely due to limited familiarity and lack of experience with the morphological classification, rather than inherent shortcomings of the system itself. The findings highlight the need for comprehensive endourology training programs focused on improving stone morphology recognition skills.
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.