ReviewCentral European journal of urology2016
Optimal management of lower pole stones: the direction of future travel.
Review in Central European journal of urology, 2016. 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, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ureteroscopy and lasertripsy for lower pole stones <2 cm, in situ vs displacement? A systematic review and meta-analysis.BJU international · 2025Pooled it
- A comparison among PCNL, Miniperc and Ultraminiperc for lower calyceal stones between 1 and 2 cm: a prospective, comparative, multicenter and randomised study.BMC urology · 2020Trial
- Endourological Options for Small (< 2 cm) Lower Pole Stones - Does the Lower Pole Angle Matter?Current urology reports · 2023Review
- Hybrid flexible ureteroscopy strategy in the management of renal stones - a narrative review.Journal of medicine and life · 2022Review
- Treatment of renal lower pole stones: an update.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of UrologyArticle
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionKidney stone disease is increasing worldwide with its most common location being in the lower pole. A clear strategy for effective management of these stones is essential in the light of ever increasing choice, effectiveness, and complications of different treatment options. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis review identifies the latest and clinically relevant publications focused on optimal management of lower pole stones.
resultsWe present an up-to-date European Association of Urology and American Urological Association algorithm for lower pole stones, risks and benefits of different treatments, and changing landscape with the miniaturization of percutaneous stone treatments.
conclusionsAvailable literature seems to be deficient on quality of life, patient centered decision making, and cost analysis of optimal management with no defined standard of 'stone free rate', all of which are critical in any surgical consultation and outcome analysis.
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.