Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27908918›Full record

SynthesisBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2016

Alpha blockers for treatment of ureteric stones: systematic review and meta-analysis.

John M Hollingsworth, Benjamin K Canales, Mary A M Rogers, Shyam Sukumar, Phyllis Yan, Gretchen M Kuntz, Philipp Dahm

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05150899 (Comparative Study Between Use of Alpha Blocker Versus Alpha Blocker and Antihistaminic in Management of Acute Renal Colic Prevent Pain Recurrence and Increase Expulsion Rate of Ureteric Stone ≤ 1cm), which is not on this map. Cited by 49 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
18.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT05150899 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

Comparative Study Between Use of Alpha Blocker Versus Alpha Blocker and Antihistaminic in Management of Acute Renal Colic Prevent Pain Recurrence and Increase Expulsion Rate of Ureteric Stone ≤ 1cm

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorAssiut UniversityRan2021 to 2022Enrolled100ConditionsRenal Colic, Ureter StoneArmsTamsulosin Hcl 0.4Mg Cap, fexofenadine 180 mg Oral tablet
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 141 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Meta-analysis of the efficacy of sexual intercourse for distal ureteric stones.The Journal of international medical research · 2019
    Pooled it
  9. Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

John M HollingsworthDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, 2800 Plymouth Rd, Building 16, 1st Floor, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA kinks@med.umich.edu.
Benjamin K CanalesDepartment of Urology, University of Florida, 1600 SW Archer Rd, Gainesville, FL 32610, USA.
Mary A M RogersDepartment of Internal Medicine, Division of General Medicine, University of Michigan, 2800 Plymouth Rd, Building 16, 4th Floor, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Shyam SukumarMinneapolis Veterans Administration Health Care System and Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Mayo Memorial Building, 420 Delaware St SE, MMC 394, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Phyllis YanDepartment of Urology, University of Michigan, 2800 Plymouth Rd, Building 16, 1st Floor, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA.
Gretchen M KuntzBorland Library, University of Florida, 653-1 W 8th St, Jacksonville, FL 32209, USA.
Philipp DahmMinneapolis Veterans Administration Health Care System and Department of Urology, University of Minnesota, Mayo Memorial Building, 420 Delaware St SE, MMC 394, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USUniversity of Florida · USUniversity of Minnesota · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the efficacy and safety of alpha blockers in the treatment of patients with ureteric stones.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, Embase, LILACS, and Medline databases and scientific meeting abstracts to July 2016. REVIEW

methodsRandomized controlled trials of alpha blockers compared with placebo or control for treatment of ureteric stones were eligible. : Two team members independently extracted data from each included study. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who passed their stone. Secondary outcomes were the time to passage; the number of pain episodes; and the proportions of patients who underwent surgery, required admission to hospital, and experienced an adverse event. Pooled risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the primary outcome with profile likelihood random effects models. Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias and the GRADE approach were used to evaluate the quality of evidence and summarize conclusions.

results55 randomized controlled trials were included. There was moderate quality evidence that alpha blockers facilitate passage of ureteric stones (risk ratio 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.39 to 1.61). Based on a priori subgroup analysis, there seemed to be no benefit to treatment with alpha blocker among patients with smaller ureteric stones (1.19, 1.00 to 1.48). Patients with larger stones treated with an alpha blocker, however, had a 57% higher risk of stone passage compared with controls (1.57, 1.17 to 2.27). The effect of alpha blockers was independent of stone location (1.48 (1.05 to 2.10) for upper or middle stones; 1.49 (1.38 to 1.63) for lower stones). Compared with controls, patients who received alpha blockers had significantly shorter times to stone passage (mean difference -3.79 days, -4.45 to -3.14; moderate quality evidence), fewer episodes of pain (-0.74 episodes, -1.28 to -0.21; low quality evidence), lower risks of surgical intervention (risk ratio 0.44, 0.37 to 0.52; moderate quality evidence), and lower risks of admission to hospital (0.37, 0.22 to 0.64; moderate quality evidence). The risk of a serious adverse event was similar between treatment and control groups (1.49, 0.24 to 9.35; low quality evidence).

conclusionsAlpha blockers seem efficacious in the treatment of patients with ureteric stones who are amenable to conservative management. The greatest benefit might be among those with larger stones. These results support current guideline recommendations advocating a role for alpha blockers in patients with ureteric stones. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration No CRD42015024169.

Indexed as

Adrenergic alpha-AntagonistsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUreteral CalculiAdrenergic alpha-Antagonists

Identifiers

PMID27908918
PMCPMC5131734
OpenAlexW2559078913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.