Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26743071›Full record

ArticleUrolithiasis2016

The success of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in treating moderate-sized (10-20 mm) renal stones.

Vera Y Chung, Benjamin W Turney

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Urolithiasis, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Ultraslow versus slow-rate shockwave lithotripsy in the management of renal stone: A randomized controlled trial.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India
    Article
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

2 authors.

Vera Y ChungOxford Stone Group, Department of Urology, Churchill Hospital, Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LE, UK. chungyeungvera@gmail.com.
Benjamin W TurneyOxford Stone Group, Department of Urology, Churchill Hospital, Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LE, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many centres favour endourological management over shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in the management of moderate-sized (10-20 mm) renal stones. International guidelines support all available modalities for the treatment of these stones. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of SWL in the treatment of 10- to 20-mm renal stones. From January 2013 to October 2014, all patients with a renal stone measuring between 10 and 20 mm in maximum diameter on CT scan that were eligible for lithotripsy were included. 130 consecutive patients were evaluated. Demographics, location of stone within the kidney, number of SWL sessions and treatment outcomes were analysed. Treatment success was classified into complete stone clearance and the presence of clinically insignificant residual fragments <4 mm (CIRF). 119 patients (92 %) completed treatment and radiological follow-up. Eleven patients were excluded due to incomplete follow-up data. The mean age was 56.8 (23-88). Male to female ratio was 1.9:1 (78:41) and the mean BMI was 28.4 (17.9-58). The mean stone size was 12.8 mm (10-14 mm: n = 87; 15-20 mm: n = 32). The mean number of treatments was 2.14 and 2.82 for stones 10-14 and 15-20 mm, respectively. Overall treatment success was 66.4 % (combined complete stone clearance and CIRFs). Subdivided by stone size <15 mm and ≥15 mm, the success rate was 70.4 and 53.1 %, respectively. The treatment success by stone location was 65, 64 and 70 % for upper, middle and lower pole stones, respectively and 67 % for PUJ stones. For those who failed SWL treatment, the majority 50 % (n = 20) were managed expectantly, 42.5 % (n = 17) required URS, and 7.5 % (n = 3) required PNL. This study suggests that SWL has an efficacy for treating larger renal stones (10-20 mm) that is equivalent to success rates for smaller stones in other series. As a low-risk and non-invasive procedure SWL should be considered a first-line treatment for these stones.

Indexed as

LithotripsyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansKidney CalculiMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRemission InductionTreatment OutcomeYoung AdultComplicationEfficacyRenal stonesShock wave lithotripsy

Identifiers

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.