ArticleTurkish journal of emergency medicine
Evaluation of STONE, modified STONE, and CHOKAI scores for predicting ureteric stone disease in Indian emergency patients: A prospective observational study.
Article in Turkish journal of emergency medicine. 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
objectiveAcute flank pain is a common complaint in the emergency department (ED), with urolithiasis being a major cause. This prospective observational study evaluated the performance of the STONE, modified STONE, and CHOKAI scores in predicting ureteric stones in Indian ED patients with acute flank pain.
methodsThe study included adult patients who underwent noncontrast computed tomography for suspected urolithiasis. Clinical scores were calculated independently, and their diagnostic accuracy was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.
resultsUreteric stones were diagnosed in 58.3% of the patients. The CHOKAI score demonstrated the highest accuracy (area under the curve [AUC] 0.89), followed by the modified STONE (AUC 0.84) and STONE (AUC 0.65) scores. Optimal cutoffs were identified using Youden's index. DeLong's test revealed that CHOKAI and modified STONE scores outperformed the STONE score, while the difference between CHOKAI and modified STONE was not significant. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed good calibration for the CHOKAI and modified STONE scores.
conclusionsThe CHOKAI score demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy in our cohort and may be the preferred tool for predicting ureteric stones in this clinical setting. Further validation in larger multicenter studies is warranted.
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.