SynthesisBMC urology2016
The efficacy and safety of silodosin for the treatment of ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Silodosin versus tamsulosin for medical expulsive treatment of ureteral stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2018Pooled it
- Efficacy of silodosin or mirabegron in medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones: a prospective, randomized-controlled study.International urology and nephrology · 2020Trial
- Effect of preoperative Silodosin on facilitating access sheath placement in retrograde intrarenal surgery. A randomized controlled studys.Arab journal of urology · 2025Article
- Effect of α1D-adrenoceptor blocker for the reduction of ureteral contractions.Investigative and clinical urology · 2023Article
- Furosemide improves the stone clearance rate of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for kidney stones but not ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Therapeutic advances in urologyArticle
- Re: Ramadhani MZ, Kloping YP, Rahman IA, Yogiswara N, Soebadi MA, Renaldo J. Silodosin as a medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Indian J Urol 2023;39:21-6.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of IndiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of silodosin as a medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of silodosin in the treatment of ureteral stones. The reference lists of retrieved studies were also investigated.
resultsSix RCTs, including 916 participants and comparing silodosin with controls, were used in the meta-analysis. Silodosin was superior to controls in terms of stone expulsion rate, the primary efficacy end point in all six RCTs (odds ratio [OR] for expulsion 2.16, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.62 to 2.86, p <0.00001). Silodosin was also more effective for secondary efficacy end points; the stone expulsion time (standardized mean difference [SMD] -3.66, 95 % CI -6.61 to -0.71; p =0.01) and analgesic requirements (SMD -0.89, 95 % CI -1.19 to -0.60; p < 0.00001) were significantly reduced compared with those of controls. Other than the incidence of abnormal ejaculation, which was higher in the silodosin groups (OR 2.84, 95 % CI 1.56 to 5.16, p =0.0006), few adverse effects were observed.
conclusionThis meta-analysis indicates silodosin is an effective and safe treatment option for ureteral stones with a low occurrence of side effects.
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.