Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28365782›Full record

SynthesisUrolithiasis2018

Role of silodosin as medical expulsive therapy in ureteral calculi: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Xin-Jian Liu, Jian-Guo Wen, You-Dong Wan, Bo-Wen Hu, Qing-Wei Wang, Yan Wang

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Urolithiasis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

6 authors.

Xin-Jian LiuDepartment of Urodynamic Centre and Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan, China.
Jian-Guo WenDepartment of Urodynamic Centre and Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan, China. wenjg@hotmail.com.
You-Dong WanDepartment of Integrated Intensive Care Unit, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, China.
Bo-Wen HuDepartment of Hepatobiliary and Pancreatic Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, China.
Qing-Wei WangDepartment of Urodynamic Centre and Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan, China.
Yan WangDepartment of Urodynamic Centre and Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450052, Henan, China.

Funding

the National Natural Science Foundation grant 81370869
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective of this study is to investigate the efficacy of silodosin in medical expulsive therapy (MET) for ureteral stones. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy and safety of silodosin in MET for ureteral calculi. We searched PubMed, Embase, Medline, Central (the Cochrane Library, Issue 1,2013), Google Scholar from the inception to March 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing silodosin with tamsulosin or control on ureteral stone passage. Eight RCTs with a total of 1145 ureteral stone patients (300 patients in the control group, 287 patients in the tamsulosin group, 558 patients in the silodosin group) were included in this meta-analysis. When compared with control, silodosin significantly improved expulsion rate of distal ureteral stones (RR: 1.42; 95% CI, 1.21-1.67; P < 0.0001), while there was no significant difference between silodosin and the control in expulsion rate of proximal (RR: 0.99; 95% CI, 0.69-1.43; P < 0.97) or mid (RR: 1.13; 95% CI, 0.60-2.16; P < 0.0001) ureteral stones. There was no significant difference between silodosin and tamsulosin in terms of expulsion time (WMD: -2.47; 95% CI, -5.32 to 0.39; P = 0.09), analgesic use (WMD: -0.39; 95% CI, -0.91 to 0.13; P  = 0.14) and retrograde ejaculation rate (RR: 1.85; 95% CI, 0.95-3.59; P = 0.07) in MET for distal ureteral stones. However, silodosin provided a significantly higher expulsion rate (RR: 1.25; 95% CI, 1.13-1.37; P < 0.0001) than tamsulosin for distal ureteral stones. Silodosin significantly improved expulsion rate of distal ureteral stones and was clinically superior to tamsulosin. Silodosin was ineffective in MET for proximal and mid ureteral stones. More RCT studies are needed to compare the efficacy of silodosin versus tamsulosin in MET for distal ureteral stones.

Indexed as

Adrenergic alpha-1 Receptor AntagonistsHumansIndolesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSulfonamidesTamsulosinTreatment OutcomeUreteral CalculiUrological AgentsAdrenergic alpha-1 Receptor AntagonistsIndolessilodosinSulfonamidesTamsulosinUrological AgentsExpulsion rateMedical expulsive therapySilodosinTamsulosinUreteral stones

Identifiers

PMID28365782

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.