Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27698400›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Urology2016

Evaluation of dusting versus basketing - can new technologies improve stone-free rates?

Brian Weiss, Ojas Shah

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Urology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

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

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Knowledge‑map Analysis of Ureteroscopy for Urolithiasis.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Brian WeissDepartment of Urology, NYU School of Medicine, 550 First Avenue, New York, New York 10016, USA.
Ojas ShahDivision of Endourology and Stone Disease, Department of Urology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center, 161 Fort Washington Avenue, New York, New York 10032, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past two decades, the management of upper-tract urinary stones has dramatically changed towards an increase in the use of ureteroscopic treatment. This change has been driven by technological advances such as the creation of flexible ureteroscopes with reduced calibre (which now have digital, disposable and dual flexion capability) and holmium lasers with increased power. Two basic principles exist when treating stones ureteroscopically: either creating stone dust and small fragments (<1-2 mm) to theoretically enable spontaneous passage of the small particles or stone fragmentation that enables safe extraction of the stone pieces with a basket or grasper in an efficient manner. Each method has unique advantages and disadvantages, but, ultimately, surgeon preference, stone size, composition, location and intrarenal and/or ureteral anatomy determine which technique is used. To date, clinical trials comparing these two techniques are lacking.

Indexed as

HumansLithotripsy, LaserUreteral CalculiUreteroscopesUreteroscopy

Identifiers

PMID27698400

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.