ArticleUrolithiasis2026
Computed tomography-based mapping of ureteral stone distributions by anatomical segment and vertebral level.
Article 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Classical anatomical teaching describes three ureteral narrowing points as the principal sites associated with ureteral stone localization; however, contemporary imaging studies suggest a more complex distribution. This retrospective study aimed to characterize ureteral stone distributions using detailed vertebral-level mapping complemented by conventional segmental classification and multiplanar stone measurements. Non-contrast computed tomography (CT) images of 398 patients, each contributing a single ureteral stone, were subjected to analysis. Stones were classified according to five anatomical ureteral segments and detailed vertebral levels. Vertical, transverse, sagittal, and maximum stone diameters were measured. The proximal ureter was the most frequent stone location (34.4%), followed by the ureteropelvic junction (UPJ; 26.1%) and ureterovesical junction (19.8%). Vertebral-level mapping demonstrated distinct clustering: UPJ stones were most frequently located at the upper third of L3 (25.0%), whereas proximal ureteral stones clustered predominantly around L3-L4, with the highest proportion at the lower third of L4 (21.9%). Stone dimensions differed significantly across the ureteral segments (p < 0.001 for all), the largest dimensions being observed at the UPJ and an overall tendency toward smaller dimensions at more distal locations. These findings demonstrate that ureteral stone distributions at CT presentation are not confined to the traditionally described narrowing points. Detailed vertebral-level mapping provides a more granular topographic characterization of stone localization than conventional segmental classification and may serve as a standardized anatomical framework for future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42709189What 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.