ArticleCureus2016
Comparison of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Urolithiasis Between Children and Adults: A Single Centre Study.
Article in Cureus, 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Experience of high polymer gel pad assisted ultrasound monitoring in the treatment of infant urolithiasis during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.Urolithiasis · 2023Article
- Comparison of ureteroscopic pneumatic lithotripsy and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for the management of proximal ureteral stones: A single center experience.Turkish journal of urology · 2018Article
- Early complications of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy in the records of the Department of Paediatrics, Nephrology and Allergology of the Military Institute of Medicine - preliminary results.Developmental period medicineArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo retrospectively evaluate the effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for urolithiasis and compare the results between children and adults. MATERIALS AND
methodsFrom January 2011 to January 2015 (four years), ESWL was performed in 104 children and 300 adults for urolithiasis. MODULITH
resultsThe mean age ± standard deviation (SD) of children was 7.84±4.22 years and of adults was a 40.22±1.57 years. Mean ± SD of the stone size was 1.28±61 cm in the adults while 1.08 ± 0.59 cm in the children. In adults, the complications included steinstrasse in six (1.98%) patients, fever in 15 (4.95%), hematuria in 19 (6.28%) and sepsis in six (1.98%) patients. In children, steinstrasse was observed in two (1.9%), mild fever in two (1.9%), hematuria in six (5.7%) and sepsis was seen in four (3.8%) patients. The overall complication rate in the adults and in the children, it was found to be 46/300 (15%) and in the children, it was seen to be 14/104 (13%). No statistical difference was found in post-ESWL complications between children and adults (P>0.05). Ancillary procedures including double J (DJ) stent were used in 13 (12.5%) children and 87 (29%) adults. There was a better stone clearance rate in children i.e. 79% as compared to 68% in adults (
conclusionChildren can achieve high stone-free rates after ESWL with a lower need for repeat ancillary procedures as compared to adults. However, there is a difference in the post-ESWL complications between these groups.
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.