Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25868563›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Urology2015

What is the stone-free rate following flexible ureteroscopy for kidney stones?

Khurshid R Ghani, J Stuart Wolf, J Stuart Wolf

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 76 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
76citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

76 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

16 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Khurshid R GhaniDivision of Endourology and Stone Disease, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
J Stuart WolfDivision of Endourology and Stone Disease, Department of Urology, University of Michigan, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
J Stuart Wolf

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Flexible ureteroscopy (URS) is increasingly being used as the first-line treatment for patients with renal stones. Despite this increase in use, substantial variations exist in the reported stone-free rates (SFR) following flexible URS. These variations are a result of inconsistencies in the definition of 'stone-free', which reflect variations in the type of imaging used to assess the presence of stones postoperatively and the timing of the assessment. Other possible factors such as the importance of residual fragments following stone surgery, and the size and position of the stones might also account for variations in stone-free rates. In order to obtain an accurate estimate of the SFR, especially within subgroups defined by stone characteristics and exact technique, we compare reported SFRs from studies that use imaging other than CT for follow-up and those that use only CT. We also review the evidence on the importance of active retrieval of fragments during flexible URS and whether this technique improves the outcomes of patients with kidney stones.

Indexed as

UreteroscopesDisease-Free SurvivalHumansTreatment OutcomeUreteral CalculiUreteroscopy

Identifiers

PMID25868563

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.