Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24919112›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2014

A comparison of nifedipine and tamsulosin as medical expulsive therapy for the management of lower ureteral stones without ESWL.

Dehong Cao, Lu Yang, Liangren Liu, Haichao Yuan, Shenqiang Qian, Xiao Lv, Pin Han, Qiang Wei

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Update on medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones: Beyond alpha-blockers.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2014
    Review
  9. 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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Dehong CaoFrom the Department of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Lu YangFrom the Department of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Liangren LiuFrom the Department of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Haichao YuanFrom the Department of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Shenqiang QianFrom the Department of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Xiao LvFrom the Department of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Pin HanFrom the Department of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Qiang WeiFrom the Department of Urology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Sichuan University · CNWest China Hospital of Sichuan University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Administration of nifedipine or tamsulosin has been suggested to augment stone expulsion rates. We aimed to compare the stone expulsion rates and adverse effects associated with the use of nifedipine or tamsulosin as medical expulsive therapy (MET) for the management of lower ureteral stones (LUS) without extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) via a literature review and meta-analysis. Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from the Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Google Scholar databases. Finally, a total of 7 RCTs with 3897 patients were included. Our meta-analysis showed that tamsulosin could significantly increase the stone expulsion rate relative to nifedipine in patients with LUS (random-effects model; risk ratio [RR] = 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.75-0.88; P < 0.00001). The subgroup analysis indicated no statistically significant difference between the drugs with regard to minor or major adverse effects (fixed-effect model; RR = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.91-1.54, P = 0.20; and RR = 1.63, 95% CI = 0.22-11.82, P = 0.63, respectively). This meta-analysis demonstrated that tamsulosin was more effective than nifedipine in patients with LUS, as evidenced by the higher stone expulsion rate. Tamsulosin treatment should therefore be considered for patients with LUS.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedHumansMiddle AgedNifedipineRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSulfonamidesTamsulosinUrinary CalculiYoung AdultNifedipineSulfonamidesTamsulosin

Identifiers

PMID24919112
PMCPMC4052729
OpenAlexW1996387149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.