ArticleKorean journal of urology2012
Usefulness of early extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in colic patients with ureteral stones.
Article in Korean journal of urology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of emergency extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of ureteral stones: a meta-analysis.BMC urology · 2023Pooled it
- Emergent versus delayed lithotripsy for obstructing ureteral stones: a cumulative analysis of comparative studies.Urolithiasis · 2017Article
- Can stone density on plain radiography predict the outcome of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones?Korean journal of urology · 2015Article
- Altered amino and fatty acids metabolism in Sudanese prostate cancer patients: insights from metabolic analysis.Journal of circulating biomarkersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare efficacy and safety between early extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (eESWL) and deferred ESWL (dESWL) in colic patients with ureteral stones and to investigate whether eESWL can play a critical role in improving treatment outcomes. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 279 patients who underwent ESWL for single radio-opaque ureteral stones of 5 to 20 mm in size were included in this retrospective study. The patients were categorized into two groups according to the time between the onset of colic and ESWL: eESWL (<48 hours, n=153) and dESWL (≥48 hours, n=126). Success was defined as stone-free status as shown on a plain radiograph within 1 month of the first session.
resultsFor all patients, the success rate in the eESWL group was significantly higher than that in the dESWL group. The eESWL group required significantly fewer ESWL sessions and less time to achieve stone-free status than did the dESWL group. For 241 patients with stones <10 mm, all treatment outcomes in the former group were superior to those in the latter group, but not for 38 patients with stones sized 10 to 20 mm. The superiority of eESWL over dESWL in the treatment outcomes was more pronounced for proximal ureteral stones than for mid-to-distal ureteral stones. Post-ESWL complication rates were comparable between the two groups. In the multivariate analysis, smaller stone size and a time to ESWL of <48 hours were independent predictors of success.
conclusionsOur data suggest that eESWL in colic patients with ureteral stones is an effective and safe treatment with accelerated stone clearance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.