Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,457

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Surgical Management of Stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART I

Assimos, Dean, Krambeck, Amy, Miller, Nicole L., Monga, Manoj, Murad, M. Hassan, Nelson, Caleb P., Pace, Kenneth T., Pais, Vernon M., Pearle, Margaret S., Preminger, Glenn M., Razvi, Hassan, Shah, Ojas, Matlaga, Brian R.·2016·Journal of Urology

Abstract

PURPOSE: This Guideline is intended to provide a clinical framework for the surgical management of patients with kidney and/or ureteral stones. The summary presented herein represents Part I of the two-part series dedicated to Surgical Management of Stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline. Please refer to Part II for an in-depth discussion of patients presenting with ureteral or renal stones. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature (search dates 1/1/1985 to 5/31/2015) was conducted to identify peer-reviewed studies relevant to the surgical management of stones. The review yielded an evidence base of 1,911 articles after application of inclusion/exclusion criteria. These publications were used to create the Guideline statements. Evidence-based statements of Strong, Moderate, or Conditional Recommendation were developed based on benefits and risks/burdens to patients. Additional directives are provided as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions when insufficient evidence existed. RESULTS: The Panel identified 12 adult Index Patients to represent the most common cases seen in clinical practice. Three additional Index Patients were also created to describe pediatric and pregnant patients with such stones. With these patients in mind, Guideline statements were developed to aid the clinician in identifying optimal management. CONCLUSIONS: Proper treatment selection, which is directed by patient- and stone-specific factors, remains the greatest predictor of successful treatment outcomes. This Guideline is intended for use in conjunction with the individual patient's treatment goals. In all cases, patient preferences and personal goals should be considered when choosing a management strategy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 20 references

Metadata

Authors
Assimos, D., Krambeck, A., Miller, N. L., Monga, M., Murad, M. H., Nelson, C. P., Pace, K. T., Pais, V. M., Pearle, M. S., Preminger, G. M., Razvi, H., Shah, O., & Matlaga, B. R.
Venue
Journal of Urology
Published
2016-10
Volume
196
Issue
4
Pages
1153-1160
ISSN
  • 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-3792
OpenAlex
W2403072155
Cited by
1,457
References
20
FWCI
83.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Surgical Management of Stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART I. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090
The paper
Assimos, D., Krambeck, A., Miller, N. L., Monga, M., Murad, M. H., Nelson, C. P., Pace, K. T., Pais, V. M., Pearle, M. S., Preminger, G. M., Razvi, H., Shah, O., & Matlaga, B. R. (2016). Surgical Management of Stones: American Urological Association/Endourological Society Guideline, PART I. Journal of Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.05.090

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.