ArticleUrolithiasis2026
Risk factors and a predictive model for steinstrasse formation after shock wave lithotripsy in pediatric urolithiasis.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Steinstrasse is an important complication following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy; however, predictive models for risk factors in pediatric populations remain limited. This study aimed to develop and externally validate an explainable machine learning model for predicting steinstrasse formation after ESWL in children. This two-center retrospective study included 807 pediatric patients (< 18 years) who underwent ESWL for renal stones (2015–2025). The internal cohort comprised 685 patients (Adıyaman), while the external validation cohort consisted of 122 patients (Adana). Twenty-six preoperative variables were evaluated. Optimal predictors were identified through consensus-based feature selection using eight algorithms. Thirteen machine learning algorithms were compared using nested cross-validation. Model interpretability was assessed through SHAP, LIME, and partial dependence analyses. The overall steinstrasse incidence was 10.5% (85/807). Nine predictors were selected: S.T.O.N.E. Score, Triple-D Score, age, stone perimeter, stone depth, Hounsfield unit, stone volume, distal ureteral diameter, and skin-to-stone distance. XGBoost demonstrated optimal external validation performance (AUC = 0.949, sensitivity = 90%, specificity = 99.1%, MCC = 0.891) and exhibited excellent generalizability (ΔAUC = 0.001). Explainable artificial intelligence analyses identified age (mean|SHAP|=1.965) and distal ureteral diameter (mean|SHAP|=1.575) as dominant predictors with significant interaction (SHAP = 0.458). Decision curve analysis confirmed clinical utility across a threshold range of 2%–98%. This externally validated model accurately predicts steinstrasse formation using routine preoperative parameters. Integration of patient age, ureteral anatomy, and stone characteristics may guide decisions between ESWL, prophylactic stenting, or alternative endoscopic approaches in pediatric patients.
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.