Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyReview Article1 Sep 2021Editorial CommentThis article comments on the following:Natural History of Post-Treatment Kidney Stone Fragments: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysisis a letter which has replyReply by Authors Anthony S. Emmott, and Ben H. Chew Anthony S. EmmottAnthony S. Emmott Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada More articles by this author , and Ben H. ChewBen H. Chew Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000001836.01AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail We applaud Brain et al for performing the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the natural history of residual asymptomatic kidney stone fragments after treatment with shock wave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy. In total they included 2,096 patients from 18 studies. Significant heterogeneity existed between studies with regard to definitions of stone-free status, disease progression and imaging modality utilized for diagnosis of residual fragments. Overall, re-intervention rates for residual fragments increased with time. However, there was no significant difference in intervention rates or disease progression rates between residual fragments over 4 mm compared with fragments 4 mm or less. These findings call into question the term “clinically insignificant residual fragments.” This term should no longer be used to describe stone fragments identified after intervention, as these residual fragments may act as a nidus for stone growth. The goal of treatment for kidney stones should therefore be to obtain a stone-free status and minimize repeat interventions, particularly considering we do not fully understand the impact of repeat interventions on patients’ quality of life. There is a wide range of stone-free rates quoted in the literature for stone removal procedures. The imaging modality and timing of re-imaging are important determinants of stone-free status, with studies showing that computerized tomography is more sensitive for residual stone fragments than other modalities, thus resulting in lower stone-free rates.1 Re-imaging following stone removal procedures is important to identify patients with residual stone fragments who may be at risk for disease progression or re-intervention. Despite the high prevalence of kidney stones, there is very limited literature on the natural history of residual fragments with a near absence of prospective trials, emphasizing the need for further investigation. Future studies to understand the impact of repeat interventions on patient quality of life would also be of benefit. Reference 1. : Computed tomography-determined stone-free rates for ureteroscopy of upper-tract stones. J Endourol 2009; 23: 379. Google Scholar © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRelated articlesJournal of UrologyApr 27, 2021, 12:00:00 AMNatural History of Post-Treatment Kidney Stone Fragments: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisJournal of UrologyJun 16, 2021, 12:00:00 AMReply by Authors Volume 206Issue 3September 2021Page: 536-537 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Anthony S. Emmott Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada More articles by this author Ben H. Chew Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF DownloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,007 | 0,085 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,012 | 0,011 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,271 | 0,150 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».