ArticleUrolithiasis2014
Use of flexible ureteroscopy in the clinical practice for the treatment of renal stones: results from a large European survey conducted by the EAU Young Academic Urologists-Working Party on Endourology and Urolithiasis.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does the use of a ureteral access sheath improve perioperative outcomes in ureteroscopy? A real-world multi-institutional study.Urolithiasis · 2025Article
- Optimizing outcome reporting after robotic flexible ureteroscopy for management of renal calculi: Introducing the concept of tetrafecta.Journal of robotic surgery · 2024Article
- Impact of case volume per year on flexible Ureteroscopy practice: an internet based survey.BMC urology · 2019Article
- Flexible ureteroscopy: Technological advancements, current indications and outcomes in the treatment of urolithiasis.Asian journal of urology · 2015Review
- What is the stone-free rate following flexible ureteroscopy for kidney stones?Nature reviews. Urology · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 6 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Treatment of renal stones using flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) is increasingly common despite the poor evidence in literature supporting its use and indications. With this study, we wanted to investigate the current use and indication of fURS for the treatment of renal stones in the clinical practice across the European countries. A survey was conducted using an emailed questionnaire consisting of 21 items; 2,894 recipients were selected via the EAU membership database. The questionnaires were collected through the SurveyMonkey system and the data were processed with the SPSS statistical package. Frequencies, cross tabs and Pearson correlation coefficients were applied as appropriate. 1,168 questionnaires were collected (response rate 40.4%). fURS was performed in 72.9% of the respondents' institutions, and 54.2% of the respondents were performing the procedure. For 95% of the users, fURS was considered first-line treatment, for stone of lower pole stone (45.9%) and <1 cm (44.2%) and 2 cm (43.8%) in size. The ureteral access sheaths were used routinely by more than 70% of the respondents. Lower pole stone repositioning technique was routinely performed by 45.9% of the surgeons. After fragmentation, 47.2% of the responders preferred to retrieve only the bigger fragments. At the end of fURS, lower volume surgeons were more likely to place routinely a double-J stent (p = 0.001). Higher volume surgeons estimated a higher durability of devices, both optical and digital ones (p < 0.001), and were more prone to consider fURS cost-effective when compared to other treatment modalities (p < 0.001). fURS is widely used for the treatment of renal stones and its use and indication can vary according to the age and surgeons' case volume. Higher volume surgeons are more prompt to extend international guidelines indications and to consider the technology cost-effective.
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.