ArticleWorld journal of urology2026
When stones grow: a practical guide from EAU endourology to changes in volume with increasing size.
Article in World journal of urology, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAccurate assessment of kidney stone volume is essential for treatment planning, yet significant heterogeneity exists in measurement methodologies. The choice of volume estimation formula can substantially impact calculated stone burden, potentially influencing clinical decisions.
objectiveTo quantify inter-method variability in kidney stone volume estimation across clinically relevant stone morphologies.
methodsTwenty-five stone configurations spanning clinically relevant dimensions (3–30 mm) were analyzed using four validated volume estimation formulas: scalene ellipsoid, oblate ellipsoid, prolate ellipsoid, and spherical approximation. Inter-method variability was quantified using coefficient of variation (CV). Error propagation analysis assessed the impact of CT measurement uncertainty (± 1.5 mm). Clinical reclassification potential was evaluated at guideline-based treatment thresholds (10 mm, 15 mm, 20 mm).
resultsInter-method CV ranged from 0% for spherical stones to 88.4% for highly elongated configurations. A strong linear relationship was observed between shape index and CV (r²=0.94). Measurement uncertainty (± 1.5 mm) produced volume variations of -66% to + 120% for small stones (5 mm) versus − 21% to + 24% for larger stones (20 mm). At clinical thresholds, elongated stones demonstrated up to 6.0-fold volume differences between formulas.
conclusionsFormula selection significantly impacts calculated stone volume, particularly for non-spherical morphologies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42001340What 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.