Recent scoring systems predicting stone-free status after retrograde intrarenal surgery; a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Urologia polska Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2022-03-24 DOI:10.5173/ceju.2022.0277
Oktay Özman, Hacı Murat Akgül, Cem Başataç, Eyüp Burak Sancak, Önder Çınar, Hakan Çakır, Cenk Murat Yazıcı, Haluk Akpınar, Bülent Önal
{"title":"Recent scoring systems predicting stone-free status after retrograde intrarenal surgery; a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Oktay Özman, Hacı Murat Akgül, Cem Başataç, Eyüp Burak Sancak, Önder Çınar, Hakan Çakır, Cenk Murat Yazıcı, Haluk Akpınar, Bülent Önal","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2022.0277","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Several scoring systems and nomograms have been developed to predict the success of retrograde intrarenal surgery. But no meta-analysis for the performance of scoring systems has yet been performed. The aim of this study was to compare predictive ability of recent scoring systems for stone-free rate of retrograde intrarenal surgery.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched systematically between April and May 2021. The scoring systems which were validated externally or studied at least by two different researcher groups were selected for further analysis. Of 59 records, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria (n = 4137). Area under curve (AUC) values of selected scoring systems were pooled in random or fixed effects. The I<sup>2</sup> test was used to quantify heterogeneity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eight, 5, 8, 4 and 3 studies included in meta-analyses for the modified Seoul National University Renal Stone Complexity Score (S-ReSC), R.I.R.S., Resorlu-Unsal Score (RUS), S.T.O.N.E., and Ito's Nomogram, respectively. We found pooled AUC values 0.709 (95% CI 0.670-0.748), 0.704 (95% CI 0.668-0.739), 0.669 (95% CI 0.646 to 0.692), and 0.771 (95% CI 0.724 to 0.818), for first four of them, respectively. Heterogeneity was very high to pool AUC values for Ito's nomogram.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although S.T.O.N.E. score showed higer pooled AUC value, this systematic review and meta-analysis has not revealed superiority of any scoring system. High heterogeneity between studies and dependencies between scoring systems make it difficult to design a comparative statistical model to generalize the findings. Also, limitations aside, neither scoring system has demonstrated good predictive/discriminative performance.</p>","PeriodicalId":86295,"journal":{"name":"Urologia polska","volume":"75 1","pages":"72-80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9074068/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urologia polska","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2022.0277","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/3/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Several scoring systems and nomograms have been developed to predict the success of retrograde intrarenal surgery. But no meta-analysis for the performance of scoring systems has yet been performed. The aim of this study was to compare predictive ability of recent scoring systems for stone-free rate of retrograde intrarenal surgery.

Material and methods: PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched systematically between April and May 2021. The scoring systems which were validated externally or studied at least by two different researcher groups were selected for further analysis. Of 59 records, 14 studies met the inclusion criteria (n = 4137). Area under curve (AUC) values of selected scoring systems were pooled in random or fixed effects. The I2 test was used to quantify heterogeneity.

Results: Eight, 5, 8, 4 and 3 studies included in meta-analyses for the modified Seoul National University Renal Stone Complexity Score (S-ReSC), R.I.R.S., Resorlu-Unsal Score (RUS), S.T.O.N.E., and Ito's Nomogram, respectively. We found pooled AUC values 0.709 (95% CI 0.670-0.748), 0.704 (95% CI 0.668-0.739), 0.669 (95% CI 0.646 to 0.692), and 0.771 (95% CI 0.724 to 0.818), for first four of them, respectively. Heterogeneity was very high to pool AUC values for Ito's nomogram.

Conclusions: Although S.T.O.N.E. score showed higer pooled AUC value, this systematic review and meta-analysis has not revealed superiority of any scoring system. High heterogeneity between studies and dependencies between scoring systems make it difficult to design a comparative statistical model to generalize the findings. Also, limitations aside, neither scoring system has demonstrated good predictive/discriminative performance.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

预测逆行肾内手术后无结石状态的最新评分系统;系统回顾和荟萃分析
一些评分系统和图已经发展到预测逆行肾内手术的成功。但目前还没有对评分系统的性能进行元分析。本研究的目的是比较近期评分系统对逆行肾内手术无结石率的预测能力。材料和方法系统检索PubMed和Web of Science数据库,检索时间为2021年4月至5月。选择外部验证或至少由两个不同研究小组研究的评分系统进行进一步分析。在59项记录中,14项研究符合纳入标准(n = 4137)。所选评分系统的曲线下面积(AUC)值按随机或固定效应汇总。I2检验用于量化异质性。结果分别有8项、5项、8项、4项和3项研究被纳入修改后的首尔国立大学肾结石复杂性评分(S-ReSC)、R.I.R.S、Resorlu-Unsal评分(RUS)、S.T.O.N.E和Ito Nomogram meta分析。我们发现前四种方法的合并AUC值分别为0.709 (95% CI 0.670-0.748)、0.704 (95% CI 0.668-0.739)、0.669 (95% CI 0.646 - 0.692)和0.771 (95% CI 0.724 - 0.818)。Ito的nomogram AUC值的异质性非常高。结论虽然S.T.O.N.E.评分显示出更高的综合AUC值,但本系统评价和荟萃分析并未显示出任何评分系统的优越性。研究之间的高度异质性和评分系统之间的依赖性使得设计一个比较统计模型来概括研究结果变得困难。此外,除了局限性之外,两种评分系统都没有表现出良好的预测/判别性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书