Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22699356›Full record

SynthesisUrological research2012

Urgent shock wave lithotripsy as first-line treatment for ureteral stones: a meta-analysis of 570 patients.

Stefano C M Picozzi, Cristian Ricci, Maddalena Gaeta, Stefano Casellato, Robert Stubinski, Dario Ratti, Giorgio Bozzini, Luca Carmignani

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Urological research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The comparison of laparoscopy, shock wave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery for large proximal ureteral stones.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada
    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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Stefano C M PicozziUrology Department, IRCCS Policlinico San Donato, Via Morandi 30, 20097, San Donato Milanese, MI, Italy. stepico@tin.it
Cristian Ricci
Maddalena Gaeta
Stefano Casellato
Robert Stubinski
Dario Ratti
Giorgio Bozzini
Luca Carmignani
IRCCS Policlinico San Donato · ITDon Carlo Gnocchi Foundation · ITUniversity of Pavia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rationale for the use of immediate shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) after a renal colic episode is to obtain maximum stone clearance in the shortest possible time with associated early detection of lithotripsy failures which can be treated with auxiliary procedures. The aim of this meta-analysis is to understand the role of this treatment option in the emergency setting as first-line treatment and to compare such an immediate procedure to a delayed one in terms of stone-free and complication rates. A bibliographic search covering the period from January 1995 to September 2010 was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Database searches yielded 48 references. This analysis is based on the seven studies that fulfilled the predefined inclusion criteria. A total of 570 participants were included. The number of participants in each survey ranged from 16 to 200 (mean 81.42). Six studies were published after 2000 and one in the 1990s. All studies reported participants' age with mean of 40.9 years, and range between 11 and 88 years. All patients presented with unilateral lithiasis, as such the number of total stones treated was 570. Mean stone diameter ranged between 6.38 and 8.45 mm. According to the logistic regression applied stone-free rates were 79 % (61-95) for the proximal ureter, 78 % (69-88) for the mid ureter, 79 % (74-84) for the distal ureter and 78 % (75-82) for overall. Stone-free rates do not evidence a statistically significant difference compared to those described in the AUA and EAU guidelines for elective management. SWL management of ureteral stones in an emergency setting is completely lacking in the international guidelines and they results disperse in the literature in few works. According to our meta-analysis, immediate SWL for a stone-induced acute renal colic seems to be a safe treatment with high success rate. This evidence will be validated by further randomized studies, with a larger series of patients.

Indexed as

Emergency TreatmentLithotripsyHumansUreteral Calculi

Identifiers

PMID22699356
OpenAlexW2090349453

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.