Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26617636›Full record

ArticleAdvances in urology2015

Flexible Ureteroscopy Can Be More Efficacious in the Treatment of Proximal Ureteral Stones in Select Patients.

Erdal Alkan, Ali Sarıbacak, Ahmet Oguz Ozkanli, Mehmet Murad Basar, Oguz Acar, Mevlana Derya Balbay

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04851171 (A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Semi-rigid Ureteroscopy and Flexible Ureteroscopy For the Treatment of Proximal Ureteric Stone), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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.

NCT04851171 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Semi-rigid Ureteroscopy and Flexible Ureteroscopy For the Treatment of Proximal Ureteric Stone

TypeinterventionalSponsorHamad Medical CorporationRan2020 to 2023Enrolled140ConditionsUreteric Stone, Stone UreterArmsFlexible Ureteroscopy, Semi-rigid Ureteroscopy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Erdal AlkanDepartment of Urology, Memorial Şişli Hospital, Şişli, Istanbul, Turkey.
Ali SarıbacakDepartment of Urology, Konak Hospital, Izmit, Turkey.
Ahmet Oguz OzkanliDepartment of Anesthesiology, Memorial Şişli Hospital, Şişli, Istanbul, Turkey.
Mehmet Murad BasarDepartment of Urology, Memorial Şişli Hospital, Şişli, Istanbul, Turkey.
Oguz AcarDepartment of Urology, Memorial Şişli Hospital, Şişli, Istanbul, Turkey.
Mevlana Derya BalbayDepartment of Urology, Memorial Şişli Hospital, Şişli, Istanbul, Turkey.
Memorial Sisli Hospital · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose. We aimed to compare and evaluate the outcomes and complications of two endoscopic treatment procedures, semirigid ureteroscopy (SR-URS) and flexible ureteroscopy (F-URS), in the treatment of proximal ureteral stones (PUS). Methods. SR-URS (group 1) was done on 68 patients whereas 64 patients underwent F-URS (group 2) for the treatment of PUS. Success rate was defined as the absence of stone fragments or presence of asymptomatic insignificant residual fragments < 2 mm. Outcomes and complications were recorded. Results. The differences were statistically not significant in age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and stone characteristics between groups. Mean ureteral stone size was 9.1 ± 0.4 mm and 8.9 ± 0.5 mm for groups 1 and 2. Mean operative time was 34.1 ± 1.5 min and 49.4 ± 2.3 min for groups 1 and 2 (p = 0.001). SFRs were 76.5% and 87.5% for groups 1 and 2 (p = 0.078). Two major complications (ureteral avulsion and ureteral rupture) occurred in group 1. Conclusion. F-URS is safer and less invasive than SR-URS in patients with PUS. There is no statistically significant difference in the efficacy of either technique. Nonetheless we recommend F-URS in the management of PUS as a first-line treatment option in select cases of proximal ureteral calculi.

Identifiers

PMID26617636
PMCPMC4649071
OpenAlexW1916808002

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.