Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25809877›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of urology2015

A critical assessment of the effects of tamsulosin and solifenacin as monotherapies and as a combination therapy for the treatment of ureteral stent-related symptoms: a 2 × 2 factorial randomized trial.

Jinsung Park, Changhee Yoo, Deok Hyun Han, Dong Wook Shin

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in World journal of urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Pharmacological treatment of bladder stent symptoms.Bladder (San Francisco, Calif.) · 2024
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Jinsung ParkDepartment of Urology, Eulji University Hospital, Eulji University School of Medicine, 1306 Dunsan-dong, Seo-gu, Daejeon, 302-799, Republic of Korea. jspark.uro@gmail.com.
Changhee YooDepartment of Urology, College of Medicine, Hallym University, Chuncheon, Republic of Korea.
Deok Hyun HanDepartment of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Dong Wook ShinDepartment of Family Medicine, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Eulji University · KRHallym University · KRSamsung Medical Center · KRSeoul National University Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess the efficacy of tamsulosin, solifenacin, and combination therapy of both agents for the treatment of ureteral stent-related symptoms (SRSs).

methodsAn open-label, randomized controlled trial was conducted with 112 patients who underwent unilateral ureteral stent insertion following ureteroscopic stone surgery. Patients were randomized with a 2 × 2 factorial design to one of four groups, i.e., A (control), B (tamsulosin 0.2 mg once daily), C (solifenacin 5 mg once daily), and D (both active treatments). Patients were evaluated at week 2 by the ureteral stent symptom questionnaire (USSQ). The primary efficacy outcome was the urinary symptom score of the USSQ, and the secondary efficacy outcomes were the scores in the other five USSQ domains, the Euro-QOL score, and oral analgesic requirements during the 2 weeks. Efficacy outcomes were primarily analyzed for the per-protocol set population.

resultsThe four groups were generally well balanced in terms of baseline characteristics. Eighty-one patients (72.3 %) completed the study protocol. Comparison of the six USSQ domain scores at week 2 showed no differences between the four groups. Similarly, comparison of the domain scores stratified by tamsulosin or solifenacin medication showed no differences for either medication. The other secondary outcomes were also similar in the group comparisons.

conclusionsNeither tamsulosin nor solifenacin medications provide beneficial effects for relieving various SRSs. In addition, the combination therapy did not have beneficial effects. Further studies are warranted to determine the benefit of medical therapy for the treatment of SRSs and to determine the optimal management strategy for SRSs.

Indexed as

Dose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedPostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesProsthesis FailureQuality of LifeRepublic of KoreaSolifenacin SuccinateStentsSulfonamidesSolifenacin SuccinateSulfonamidesTamsulosinUrological AgentsQuality of lifeSolifenacinTamsulosinUreteral calculiUreteral stent

Identifiers

PMID25809877
OpenAlexW2005664807

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.