SynthesisUrolithiasis2026
Predicting the stone-free status post percutaneous nephrolithotomy: a meta-analysis of machine learning models.
Synthesis in Urolithiasis, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the primary treatment for large or complex renal stones, yet postoperative stone-free status (SFS) remains difficult to predict, contributing to variation in clinical outcomes. Machine learning (ML) models have recently been applied in urology and show promise for predicting treatment success by integrating clinical and radiologic features. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of ML models in predicting the stone-free status following PCNL. We followed PRISMA-DTA guidelines throughout the entire process. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase was conducted from inception to January 2025. Studies assessing the sensitivity and specificity of ML models for predicting SFS after PCNL were screened and retrieved according to predefined criteria. Primary outcomes included pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratio. All analyses were performed using MetaDisc software, applying a bivariate random-effects model and quality assessment was performed using QUADAS-2 tool. Six studies including 17,977 patients were analyzed. ML models showed a pooled sensitivity of 0.714 (95% CI 0.062–0.99) and specificity of 0.767 (95% CI 0.175–0.981). The diagnostic odds ratio was 8.218, indicating moderate accuracy with high heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses of XGBoost, logistic regression, and random forest models showed similarly variable performance. Our results indicate that current ML models demonstrate moderate ability to predict SFS after PCNL but lack consistency for independent clinical use. Stronger validation and standardized methodology are needed before these tools can be reliably implemented.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41961297What 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.