ReviewCurrent urology reports2017
Medical Expulsive Therapy: Worthwhile or Wishful Thinking.
Review in Current urology reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of external physical vibration lithecbole combined with tamsulosin in upper ureteric stones after ESWL: a prospective randomized clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Alpha-blockers: the magic pill for endourology-The great delusion.World journal of urology · 2024Review
- Disparities in care among patients presenting to the emergency department for urinary stone disease.Urolithiasis · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewWe set out to provide an overview of the most recent evidence for medical expulsive therapy (MET). Conflicting level 1 evidence for and against the use of MET has been published. RECENT
findingsThe largest double-blind randomized control trial (1110 patients) comparing placebo, tamsulosin, and nifedipine found no benefit for MET in preventing the need for secondary intervention. A recent meta-analysis of 55 randomized trials using alpha-blockers suggests that no benefit is seen with smaller ureteric calculi, but patients with larger ureteric calculi experience shorter times to stone passage, fewer episodes of pain, require less surgical intervention, and fewer hospital admissions. All the major urological organizations (American Urological Association, European Association of Urology, Canadian Urological Association) suggest offering MET as part of conservative management for appropriate patients with ureteric calculi. MET is a reasonable option for conservative management of ureteric calculi that may avoid the need for surgical intervention. The greatest benefit is likely seen with alpha-blockers and calculi ≥5 mm in the distal ureter. Expanding indications for the use of MET include facilitating stone fragment clearance after SWL. MET appears to be safe for use in pregnant and pediatric patients.
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.