ArticleCurrent urology2016
Managing Small Ureteral Stones: A Retrospective Study on Follow-Up, Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Conservative Management vs. Early Surgery.
Article in Current urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Intervention versus observation for asymptomatic kidney stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Effects of continuing nursing care under cognitive behavioral intervention on psychological state and living quality in patients with double J catheter after ureterolithiasis surgery.American journal of translational research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe management of ureteral calculi has evolved over the past decades with the advent of new surgical and medical treatments. The current guidelines support conservative management as a possible approach for ureteral stones sized = 10 mm.
objectivesWe purport to follow the natural history of ureteral stones managed conservatively in this retrospective study, and attempt to ascribe an estimated health-care and cost-effectiveness, from presentation to time of being stone-free. MATERIALS AND
methods192 male and female patients with a single ureteral stone sized = 10 mm were included in this study. The clinical and cost-related outcome was analyzed for different stone sizes (0-4, 4-6 and 6-10 mm). The effectiveness of selected follow-up (FU) scans was also analyzed.
resultsStone size was found to be related to the degree of hydronephrosis and to the likelihood of need for a surgical management. Conservative management was found to be clinically effective, as 88% of the patients did not require surgery for their stone. 96.1% of the patients with a stone 0-4mm managed to expel their ureteral stone. Bigger ureteral stones were found to be more costly. The cost-effectiveness of the single FU scans was found to be related to their efficiency, while the global cost-effectiveness of conservative management vs. early surgery was higher for smaller stones (26.8 vs. 17.32% for stones 0-4 vs. 6-10 mm).
conclusionConservative management is clinically effective with a significant cost-benefit, particularly for the subgroup of stones sized 0-4 mm, where a need for FU scans is in dispute.
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.