ReviewUrolithiasis2015
Arguments for choosing extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for removal of urinary tract stones.
Review in Urolithiasis, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surgical management of urolithiasis - a systematic analysis of available guidelines.BMC urology · 2018Pooled it
- The effect and safety assessment of monitoring ethanol concentration in exhaled breath combined with intelligent control of renal pelvic pressure on the absorption of perfusion fluid during flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy.International urology and nephrology · 2024Trial
- Effect of different targeted calyxes on the treatment of multi-site calculi in the postural drainage lithotripsy system.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
- Life threatening hepatic hemorrhage after shockwave lithotripsy - A case report and review of literature.Urology case reports · 2021Article
- Article
- Trends of upper urinary tract stone management in a high volume stone center in Saudi Arabia, 12 years analysis.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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
At a time when there is an almost unlimited enthusiasm and preference among urologists for endoscopic stone removal, we have found it essential to meet some of the frequently presented arguments on why extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) should not be used. We have based our considerations in this brief article on our 30-35 years' experience with the non-invasive or least invasive technique that SWL represents. Stone disintegration, requirement of repeated treatment sessions, the concern of residual fragments, complications and economic aspects are some points that are discussed.
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.