Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19597512›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Urology2009

Ureteral stent symptoms and associated infections: a biomaterials perspective.

Ben H Chew, Dirk Lange

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 63 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Inferior vena cava invasion by double-J stent.World journal of emergency medicine · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Advances in ureteral stents.Translational andrology and urology · 2014
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ben H ChewDepartment of Urologic Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. ben.chew@ubc.ca
Dirk Lange
University of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ureteral stents are commonly used in the field of urology, and, given their indwelling nature, are often a nidus for infection and a cause of discomfort. To minimize symptoms, the urologic surgeon should first consider whether a stent needs to be placed at all. Softer stents do not seem to improve patient comfort. Stents that are too long, specifically those that cross the midline of the bladder, significantly increase the frequency of stent-related symptoms. Administering alpha blockers while the stent is indwelling can reduce these symptoms. Antibiotic prophylaxis or concomitant antibiotic administration does not seem to reduce the incidence of stent-related urinary tract infection. At present, drug-eluting stents have shown the most promise for inhibiting bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation. Future stent designs that maintain drainage of the kidney and ureter while minimizing inflammation and contact with the urothelium will improve patient outcomes. By better understanding the basic pathways of bacterial adhesion to biomaterials, new stents and medications that target these mechanisms can be developed to eliminate bacterial adhesion and infection in patients with ureteral stents.

Indexed as

AnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsDrug-Eluting StentsHumansPostoperative ComplicationsProsthesis-Related InfectionsStentsUreteral DiseasesBiocompatible Materials

Identifiers

PMID19597512
OpenAlexW1992397864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.