SynthesisWorld journal of urology2026
Methodology of peri-operative imaging data reporting for stone disease: a systematic review toward the development of a novel checklist-iSTAR.
Synthesis 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
purposeTo critically analyze the methodology of imaging data reporting, including timing, modality and stone burden measurement perioperatively, from recently published literature on surgical interventions for stones, and to develop a scoring system to evaluate its quality.
methodsArticles reporting treatment outcomes in adult patients, published in 2020-2021 by preselected journals, were searched on PubMed and Embase. Recorded data for statistical analysis included type of study and intervention, pre- and postoperative imaging modality and timing, stone burden assessment method and measurement, stone free and treatment success definition or their differentiation. A new 7-point checklist (iSTAR-Imaging for Stone Treatment Assessment Reporting) was developed.
resultsA total of 122 studies were included. Several papers did not report on pre- or postoperative imaging modality (13.9% and 5.7%), nor provided a definition of stone burden measurement or treatment success (43% and 18%). Stone burden was most often assessed with Non-Contrast Computed Tomography (54.9%) and reported as stone diameter (75.4%). Definitions of treatment success varied widely across literature, ranging from 0 mm to allowing 4 mm residual fragments. Preoperative imaging timing lacked in 95.9% of studies, while postoperative timing distribution was heterogeneously present. iSTAR scores resulted in 0/7 (0.8%), 1/7 (0.8%), 2/7 (1.6%), 3/7 (7.4%), 4/7 (16.4%), 5/7 (32%), 6/7 (38.5%) and 7/7 (10.7%), independently from study design.
conclusionThis research unveils a lack of standardization in reporting of perioperative urolithiasis imaging. iSTAR checklist may help authors to improve data reporting and provide journals and reviewers with a framework to assess imaging methodology quality in submitted manuscripts.
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.