SynthesisUrolithiasis2015
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment for renal stones 1-2 cm: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Urolithiasis, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery, and Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Treatment of Renal Stones: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Pooled it
- Electroacupuncture combined with extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy is beneficial for the expulsion of ureteral calculi: a prospective randomized trial.World journal of urology · 2024Trial
- Comparison of outcomes of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery in the management of renal calculi measuring one to two centimeters.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Clinical outcomes of an intelligent pressure-controlled disposable ureteroscope for Laser lithotripsy in renal stone surgery: a retrospective matched cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Article
- Heavy as a rock or light as dust: a comparison between the perceived workload for extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, ureterorenoscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy.Central European journal of urology · 2024Article
- Does Early Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Improve the Cost-Effectiveness of Renal Stone Management?Yonsei medical journal · 2020Article
- A stone pushed back to the collecting system - long therapeutic path in centers with limited access to flexible instruments.Central European journal of urology · 2018Article
- The "old" 15 mm renal stone size limit for RIRS remains a clinically significant threshold size.World journal of urology · 2017Article
- The success of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in treating moderate-sized (10-20 mm) renal stones.Urolithiasis · 2016Article
- Management of lower pole renal stones: the devil is in the details.Annals of translational medicine · 2016Article
- Totally ultrasound-guided minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomy in children: Is it safe?African journal of paediatric surgery : AJPSArticle
- Review
- Evaluation of the effect of Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery with Myo-Inositol Oxygenase.Pakistan journal of medical sciencesArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the treatment for renal calculi 1-2 cm. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database were researched and hand-searched for relevant congress abstracts and journals about RIRS and ESWL for the treatment for 1- to 2-cm renal stones. The retrieval time ended in September 2014. The related trials met the inclusion criteria were included in the meta-analysis. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of all included studies, and meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.2. Seven literatures were retrieved, including 983 patients. The meta-analysis results showed that, compared to RIRS group, the patients in ESWL group had the following features:(1) the stone-free rate [relative risk (RR) 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-0.95, P = 0.005] was significantly different between two groups; (2) The retreatment rate of RIRS group was lower (RR 8.12; 95% CI 4.77-13.83, P < 0.00); (3) The complications were not significantly different between two groups (Grade I RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.67-1.69, P = 0.80; Grade II RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.29-1.91, P = 0.54; Grade III RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.26-2.86, P = 0.80). Compared to ESWL, our results showed that RIRS provided significantly higher stone-free rate and lower retreatment rate and without increase in the incidence of complications. However, further randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings.
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.