ReviewWorld journal of urology2026
From conventional imaging software to artificial intelligence: tools for stone volume assessment in urolithiasis. Α review by the EAU and YAU sections of endourology.
Review in World journal of urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Slice thickness matters: CT-based evaluation of stone-free status with grade classification after RIRS.World journal of urology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAccurate assessment of stone burden is fundamental in urolithiasis, as it directly influences treatment selection and prognostic evaluation. Although maximum stone diameter on non-contrast computed tomography remains the most widely used parameter, it does not adequately reflect the three-dimensional complexity of urinary calculi. This review aimed to summarize the evolution of stone burden assessment from conventional imaging-based methods to software-assisted volumetry and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven tools, with emphasis on their accuracy, reproducibility, and clinical utility.
methodsA narrative review of the literature was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar for English-language studies published up to March 2026. Original studies, validation studies, technical reports, reviews, and guideline-related papers addressing conventional CT-based measurement, software-assisted volumetry, AI-based stone segmentation, and the clinical significance of stone volume were included. Due to heterogeneity in study design and reported outcomes, the evidence was synthesized narratively.
resultsMaximum stone diameter remains simple and widely available, but it incompletely represents true stone burden, particularly in larger or irregular stones. Formula-based ellipsoid calculations are practical yet show limited accuracy in complex geometries. Semi-automated CT-based segmentation software provides more reliable volumetric assessment, with excellent agreement with reference standards and reduced interobserver variability. AI-based approaches have further improved efficiency by enabling rapid and highly accurate automated stone detection and volume calculation. Across the reviewed literature, stone volume was consistently shown to be more clinically informative than linear dimensions for predicting spontaneous passage, stone-free rates after shockwave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy, and future symptomatic events during surveillance.
conclusionsStone volume offers a more accurate and clinically meaningful estimate of stone burden than maximum stone diameter alone. The transition from formula-based methods to software-assisted and AI-driven volumetry represents an important advance in urolithiasis imaging. Wider adoption will depend on standardized imaging protocols, improved software accessibility, and validation of volume-based thresholds for routine clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42177680What 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.