ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2026
Prospective evaluation of ultrasound shear-wave elastography for predicting outcomes of extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy in proximal ureteral stones.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePredicting extracorporeal shock-wave lithotripsy (ESWL) success is central to ureteral stone management. This prospective study evaluated shear-wave elastography (SWE) in 10-20 mm proximal ureteral calculi.
methodsNinety patients with a 10-20 mm proximal ureteral stone were enrolled. Before ESWL, each underwent non-contrast computed tomography for Hounsfield unit (HU) quantification and ultrasound SWE. A stone-free result (residual fragments ≤4 mm) at 4 weeks defined success.
resultsA stone-free result occurred in 62.2% (56/90). Stone-free patients had lower stiffness (14.6±6.1 vs. 27.6±9.1 kPa) and HU values (786±194 vs. 1,137±195 HU, both p < 0.0001). ROC-derived cut-offs were 21.2 kPa (AUC 0.871) and 935 HU (AUC 0.890). Against a zero-fragment endpoint, SWE discrimination fell (AUC 0.64). On Firth-corrected modelling, lower body mass index (p = 0.043), SWE below 21.2 kPa (p = 0.033) and HU below 935 (p = 0.004) independently predicted success. For SWE, this held only at the dichotomised cut-off; the continuous association did not reach significance (OR = 0.904 per kPa, p = 0.055). Within-session repeatability was moderate-to-good (ICC = 0.74). Adding SWE to an HU-only model did not improve discrimination (AUC 0.890 to 0.898; DeLong p = 0.585), although the likelihood-ratio test (p = 0.025) and integrated discrimination improvement (+ 0.055, p = 0.019) were significant. SWE correlated strongly with HU (ρ = 0.76, p < 0.0001).
conclusionLower stone stiffness, dichotomised at a cohort-derived threshold, was independently associated with a stone-free outcome. SWE largely overlapped with HU and did not improve discrimination; it may therefore provide similar information by a radiation-free route where repeat CT is undesirable, rather than adding to CT. The 21.2 kPa threshold should be regarded as exploratory pending multicentre validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42859379What 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.