Trial reportUrolithiasis2017
Comparison of escalating, constant, and reduction energy output in ESWL for renal stones: multi-arm prospective randomized study.
Trial report in Urolithiasis, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Energy output modalities of shockwave lithotripsy in the treatment of urinary stones: escalating or fixed voltage? A systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2020Pooled it
- Predictors of Recurrent Ureteral Stones: A Retrospective Analysis of Clinical, Demographic, and Metabolic Factors.Cureus · 2026Article
- Automated Generation of Personalized Shock Wave Lithotripsy Protocols: Treatment Planning Using Deep Learning.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- Outcomes of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones according to ESWL intensity.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Article
- Optimisation of shock wave lithotripsy: a systematic review of technical aspects to improve outcomes.Translational andrology and urology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study was designed to find out the optimized energy delivery strategy in Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL) that yield to the best stone-free rate (SFR). In this clinical trial, 150 consecutive patients were randomized into three groups: (a) Dose escalation, 1500 SW at 18 kV, followed by 1500 SW at 20 kV then 1500 SW at 22 kV. (b) Constant dose, 4500 SW at 20 kV. All patients undergo plain X-ray film of the urinary tract at day 1, 14, and 90 to assess stone-free rate (SFR) which was defined as no stones or painless fragments less than 4 mm. (c) Dose reduction, 1500 SW at 22 kV, followed by 1500 SW at 20 kV and then 1500 SW at 18 kV. The three treatment groups were comparable in terms of age, sex, stone size and distribution of the kidneys, and the need for Double J stent use. On day 90, the SFR achieved was 82, 90, and 84 % in the escalating, constant, and reduction energy groups, respectively. However, this rate was not statistically significant (x
Indexed as
Identifiers
27687681What 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.