Stone analysis

Conclusion

A politician's closing remarks should be effective, but those of a scientist should be honest as well. What is the state of the art of stone analysis? Considering the results of 10 years of international quality control, instead of using the term “state of the art” in stone analysis, I prefer to discuss the “state of misuse” of analytical tools.

A scientist would never accept a method for determining potassium, glucose or pregnancy that proved to be entirely wrong in>20% of all cases. What is the reason for continuing to use the suspicious chemical method? One answer could be: we have always done it that way. However for the removal of urinary stones, the methods been universally adopted is now lithotripsy. The correct answer to the above question, which would enable the use of the chemical method, might involve the following. Chemical analysis costs less than infrared spectroscopy or X-ray diffraction but involves the same reimbursement, resulting in higher earrings; moreover there is no control. If a doctor were to use a pregnancy test that was as faults as chemical stone analysis, nature would inform him and the patient about the quality of the test in a short time. Thus, one is forced to apply a reliable test. In stone analysis, we are free to choose a reliable test; hopefully, we will make use of this freedom.