Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28070668›Full record

ArticlePediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany)2017

What happens to asymptomatic lower pole kidney stones smaller than 10 mm in children during watchful waiting?

Onur Telli, Nurullah Hamidi, Uygar Bagci, Arif Demirbas, Ahmet Metin Hascicek, Tarkan Soygur, Berk Burgu

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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.

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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Contemporary considerations in the management and treatment of lower pole stones.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Onur TelliDepartment of Pediatric Urology, School of Medicine, Ankara University, Sihhiye, Ankara, 06100, Turkey. onurtelli@yahoo.com.ORCID 0000-0002-7454-7661
Nurullah HamidiDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.
Uygar BagciDepartment of Urology, School of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.
Arif DemirbasUrology Clinic, Ankara Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Ahmet Metin HascicekUrology Clinic, Ankara Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Tarkan SoygurDepartment of Pediatric Urology, School of Medicine, Ankara University, Sihhiye, Ankara, 06100, Turkey.
Berk BurguDepartment of Pediatric Urology, School of Medicine, Ankara University, Sihhiye, Ankara, 06100, Turkey.
Ankara University · TRMinistry of Health · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe optimal management of lower pole kidney (LPK) stones in children is controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of children with asymptomatic isolated LPK stones smaller than 10 mm during follow-up.

methodsA total of 242 patients with 284 stones presenting at our institution between June 2004 and December 2014 with an asymptomatic, single LPK stone with a diameter of <10 mm were enrolled in the study. All children were assigned to receive first-line therapy and then categorized according to the need for medical intervention. Age, gender, stone laterality, stone size and type, associated urinary tract problems, and uncontrolled metabolic status were assessed as predictive factors of medical treatment for small (<10 mm) asymptomatic LPK stones. Stone-free rates were compared between interventions.

resultsThe mean age and mean stone size were 9.4 ± 1.9 years and 7.4 ± 0.6 mm at admission, respectively. Stone progression rate was 61.2%, and the mean time for intervention was 19.2 ± 4.6 months. Flexible ureterorenoscopy (n = 68) or micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (n = 4) were performed for 72 stones (25.4%; group 1), and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy was performed for 102 stones (35.9%; group 2). The stone-free rates were 81.8 and 79.3% in group 1 and 2, respectively (p > 0.05). The remaining asymptomatic stones (110, 38.8%; group 3) were managed by continued observation, and at the end of the observation time (mean 40.8 ± 20.8 months) the spontaneous passage rate was 9.1% in this group. In the multivariate analysis, stone size of >7 mm, concurrent renal anomalies, and stones composed of magnesium ammonium phosphate (struvite) and cystine were statistically significant predictors of the need for intervention.

conclusionsChildren with stones larger than 7 mm, renal anomalies, or stones composed of metabolically active cystine or struvite are more likely to require intervention, and those with asymptomatic LPK stones smaller than 10 mm can be managed by continued observation.

Indexed as

Watchful WaitingAdolescentAge FactorsChildChild, PreschoolCystineFemaleHumansInfantKidney CalculiLithotripsyMaleNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousSex FactorsStruviteTreatment OutcomeCystineStruviteAsymptomaticChildrenKidneyKidney stonesLower pole kidney stone

Identifiers

PMID28070668
OpenAlexW2568881515

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.