ArticleTurkish journal of urology2016
Evaluation of ureteroscopy outcome in a teaching hospital.
Article in Turkish journal of urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ureterorenoscopy performed by residents under expert supervision: a training approach ensuring patient safety and effectiveness.BMC urology · 2025Article
- Learning curve of semi-rigid ureteroscopy for small calculi: how many cases are necessary?Revista do Colegio Brasileiro de Cirurgioes · 2022Article
- External Validation of the S.T.O.N.E. Score in Predicting Stone-Free Status After Rigid Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy.Research and reports in urology · 2021Article
- Is spinal anesthesia an alternative and feasible method for proximal ureteral stone treatment?Central European journal of urology · 2020Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate factors affecting semi-rigid ureteroscopy (URS) results highlighting the influence of teaching on its outcomes. MATERIAL AND
methodsWe reviewed the files of 891 adult patients who had undergone 1182 ureteroscopies at our institute during the period from July 2008 to June 2011. The outcomes of all URSs were evaluated. Outcomes were measured by stone- free rate and presence of complications, which were assessed using the Clavien-Dindo system. Patients were divided into 2 groups; Group 1 (favorable outcome) became stone- free after the first URS and had no documented complications, while Group 2 (unfavorable outcome) had residual stones and/or complications. Group 2 was subdivided according to the skill level of the operating surgeon into two subgroups. Patients belonging to subgroup A had their procedures performed by urology trainees under direct supervision of expert urologists, while those in subgroup B had their procedures performed by the expert urologists themselves. All groups were compared using univariate (chi-square and t tests) and multivariate (logistic regression) statistical tests to identify significant risk factors. All data was analyzed using SPSS.
resultsA total of 1182 URSs were evaluated. 958 patients had a favorable outcome (Group 1) while 224 patients had an unfavorable outcome (Group 2). Factors associated with an unfavorable outcome include location of the presenting stone (p<0.001) and presence of stone impaction (p<0.001). No statistically significant differences were detected in the overall complication rate between trainees and expert urologists. Trainees stone- free rate was comparable to that of experts; 90.3% vs. 91.1%, respectively, p=0.6.
conclusionFactors such as stone impaction and proximal location are associated with an unfavorable surgical outcome. In a high- volume teaching hospital, semi-rigid URS done by trainees under direct supervision is safe and their outcome is comparable to literature findings.
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.