ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2015
[Shock wave lithotripsy in Germany: Results of a nationwide survey].
Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Can we predict the need for intervention in steinstrasse following shock wave lithotripsy?Urology annalsArticle
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFollowing its introduction in the 1980s extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) became the gold standard for therapy of ureteral and renal calculi. The research data published during the last decade suggest a paradigm shift to endourological techniques.
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to compare whether the suggested loss of status for SWL corresponds with actual real-life treatment in Germany. A further aim was to assess the quality of SWL therapy in German hospitals. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe board of the German Society for Shock Wave Lithotripsy (DGSWL) sent a questionnaire to 306 urological departments in Germany, which encompassed medical, technical and organizational topics in the therapy of ureteral and renal calculi. A total of 99 (33%) questionnaires were returned.
conclusionWith the exception of a few departments, non-invasive SWL still plays a major role in the treatment of urolithiasis and a loss of the gold standard status is not in sight. The performance of SWL in German hospitals is carried out at a high level of quality. To maintain and optimize this status a structured SWL training and adherence to clinical practice guidelines are needed.
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.