↓ Skip to main content

Use of the Uro Dyna-CT in endourology – the new frontier

Overview of attention for article published in International Brazilian Journal of Urology, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Use of the Uro Dyna-CT in endourology – the new frontier
Published in
International Brazilian Journal of Urology, August 2017
DOI 10.1590/s1677-5538.ibju.2016.0413
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabio C. Vicentini, Luiz A. A. Botelho, José L. M. Braz, Ernane de S. Almeida, Marcelo Hisano

Abstract

To compare the application time and the capacity of the nomograms to predict the success of Guy's Stone Score (GSS), S.T.O.N.E. Nephrolithometry (STONE) and Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society nephrolithometric nomogram (CROES) of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), evaluating the most efficient one for clinical use. We studied 48 patients who underwent PCNL by the same surgeon between 2010 and 2011. We calculated GSS, STONE and CROES based on preoperative non-contrast computed tomography (CT) images and clinical data. A single observer, blinded to the outcomes, reviewed all images and assigned scores. We compared the application time of each nomogram. We used an analysis of variance for repeated measures and multiple comparisons by the Tukey test. We compared the area under the ROC curve (AUC) of the three nomograms two by two to determine the most predictive scoring system. The immediate success rate was 66.7% and complications occurred in 16.7% of cases. The average operative time was 122 minutes. Mean application time was significantly lower for the GSS (27.5 seconds) when compared to 300.6 seconds for STONE and 213.4 seconds for CROES (p<0.001). There was no significant difference among the GSS (AUC=0.653), STONE (AUC=0.563) and CROES (AUC=0.641) in the ability to predict immediate success of PCNL. All three nomograms showed similar ability to predict success of PCNL, however the GSS was the quickest to be applied, what is an important issue for routine clinical use when counseling patients who are candidates to PCNL.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 2 20%
Student > Master 2 20%
Other 2 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Unknown 3 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 40%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 10%
Engineering 1 10%
Unknown 4 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 November 2020.
All research outputs
#18,574,814
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from International Brazilian Journal of Urology
#438
of 695 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,062
of 317,425 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Brazilian Journal of Urology
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 695 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,425 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.