ArticleUrolithiasis2017
Emergent versus delayed lithotripsy for obstructing ureteral stones: a cumulative analysis of comparative studies.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emergency management of ureteral stones with SWL: is there any advantage over elective approach?BMC urology · 2026Article
- The diagnostic value of computed tomography in the management of patients with acute flank pain: An observational cohort study.Urologia · 2026Article
- Urgent ureterorenoscopy as a primary treatment for ureteral stone: why not?Urolithiasis · 2024Article
- Cost-effectiveness of quality improvement intervention to reduce time between CT-detection and ureteroscopic laser fragmentation in acute symptomatic ureteric stones management.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Comparison of immediate versus post-stenting ureteroscopy for ureteral stones treatment.Journal of medicine and life · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Current management of renal colic across Europe and its compliance to the European Association of Urology Guidelines on Urolithiasis: a survey from the European Section of Uro-technology, European Section of Urolithiasis, Young Academic Urologists study groups.Central European journal of urology · 2022Article
- Contemporary treatment trends for upper urinary tract stones in a total population analysis in Germany from 2006 to 2019: will shock wave lithotripsy become extinct?World journal of urology · 2022Article
- Small-tract percutaneous nephrolithotomy for an elderly female with renal and ureteral stones complicated by pyogenic kidney.Urology case reports · 2021Article
- Emergency vs elective ureteroscopy for a single ureteric stone.Arab journal of urology · 2020Article
- Emergent ureteral stone treatment: Whom? When?Urolithiasis · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze the current evidence on the use of ureteroscopy (URS) and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) for the management of obstructing ureteral stones in emergent setting.
methodsA systematic literature review was performed up to June 2016 using Pubmed and Ovid databases to identify pertinent studies. The PRISMA criteria were followed for article selection. Separate searches were done using a combinations of several search terms: "laser lithotripsy", "ureteroscopy", "extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy", "ESWL", "rapid", "immediate", "early", "delayed", "late", "ureteral stones", "kidney stones", "renal stones". Only titles related to emergent/rapid/immediate/early (as viably defined in each study) versus delayed/late treatment of ureteral stones with either URS and/or ESWL were considered for screening. Demographics and operative outcomes were compared between emergent and delayed lithotripsy. RevMan review manager software was used to perform data analysis.
resultsFour studies comparing emergent (n = 526) versus delayed (n = 987) URS and six studies comparing emergent (n = 356) versus delayed (n = 355) SWL were included in the analysis. Emergent URS did not show any significant difference in terms of stone-free rate (91.2 versus 90.9%; OR 1.04; CI 0.71, 1.52; p = 0.84), complication rate (8.7% for emergent versus 11.5% for delayed; OR 0.94; CI 0.65, 1.36; p = 0.74) and need for auxiliary procedures (OR 0.85; CI 0.42, 1.7; p = 0.85) when compared to delayed URS. Emergent ESWL was associated with a higher likelihood of stone free status (OR 2.2; CI 1.55, 3.17; p < 0.001) and a lower likelihood of need for auxiliary maneuvers (OR 0.49; CI 0.33, 0.72; p < 0.001) than the delayed procedure. No differences in complication rates were noticed between the emergent and delayed ESWL (p = 0.37).
conclusionsEmergent lithotripsy, either ureteroscopic or extracorporeal, can be offered as an effective and safe treatment for patients with symptomatic ureteral stone. If amenable to ESWL, based on stone and patient characteristics, an emergent approach should be strongly considered. Ureteroscopy in the emergent setting is mostly reserved for distally located stones. The implementation of these therapeutic approaches is likely to be dictated by their availability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28233025What 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.