ArticleAsian journal of urology2026
Rock-on or crumble: Do kidney stones pass the test of time? A European Association of Urology Section of Endourology study.
Article in Asian 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Kidney stone disease is a relapsing disease and preventive measures are therefore of great importance. A cornerstone for adequate treatment and prevention of kidney stone recurrence is stone analysis. This pilot study aimed to evaluate whether time and different Methods: Ninety-two stone fragments from 23 kidney stone patients were allocated to four groups (Group A, direct stone analysis; Group B, dry non-transparent environment; Group C, dry transparent environment; Group D, wet non-transparent environment). Fragments from Groups B, C, and D were photographed on postoperative day (POD) 0 and POD 84 and sent for stone analysis afterwards. The objective change in appearance was assessed through the mean Euclidean distance in the Commission Internationale de l'Éclairage Results: Overall, the mean Euclidean distance was 5.52 between POD 0 and POD 84. XRD had an agreement between POD 0 and POD 84 of 98%. MCA had an agreement of 92%. The objective changes in appearance between POD 0 and POD 84 did not correlate with the diagnostic accuracy of XRD or MCA. Conclusion: The appearance of kidney stones alters over time and in different
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.