Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28396695›Full record

ArticlePatient safety in surgery2017

A new patient safety smartphone application for prevention of "forgotten" ureteral stents: results from a clinical pilot study in 194 patients.

Wilson R Molina, Rodrigo Pessoa, Rodrigo Donalisio da Silva, McCabe C Kenny, Diedra Gustafson, Leticia Nogueira, Mark E Leo, Michael K Yu, Fernando J Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient safety in surgery, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Forgotten Double-J Ureteral Stent.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Article
  11. Smartphone-based stent tracking application for prevention of forgotten ureteral double-J stents: a prospective study.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    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

9 authors.

Wilson R MolinaDenver Health Medical Center, Denver, USA.
Rodrigo PessoaDenver Health Medical Center, Denver, USA.
Rodrigo Donalisio da SilvaDenver Health Medical Center, Denver, USA.
McCabe C KennyDenver Health Medical Center, Denver, USA.
Diedra GustafsonDenver Health Medical Center, Denver, USA.
Leticia NogueiraDenver Health Medical Center, Denver, USA.
Mark E LeoUrology Specialists of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA.
Michael K YuDayton Physicians, LLC, Ohio, USA.
Fernando J KimDenver Health Medical Center, Denver, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundApproximately 12% of all ureteral stents placed are retained or "forgotten." Forgotten stents are associated with significant safety concerns as well as increased costs and legal issues. Retained ureteral stents (RUS) often occur due to lack of clinical follow-up, communication or language barriers, and economic concerns.

methodsWe describe a multiplatform application that facilitates data collection to prevent RUS. The "Stent Tracker" application can be installed on mobile devices and computers. The encrypted and password-protected information is accessible from any device and provides information about each procedure, stent placement and removal dates, as well as product description. This multicenter retrospective study included 194 patients who underwent stent placement between July and October 2015. Nominal data was tallied and ordinal data was divided into quartiles of 25, 50, and 75%.

resultsA total of 194 patients from three institutions underwent ureteral stent placement. Reasons for stent placement include 122 cases post ureteroscopy (63%), 8 cases post percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) (4%), 14 cases post extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) (7%), 18 cases of cancer-related ureteral obstruction (9%), 21 cases of hydronephrosis (11%), and 11 for other reasons (6%). Of these patients, only one patient was lost to follow-up (0.5%). On average, ureteral stents were removed within 14 days of placement (IQR: 8-26 days).

conclusionsThe "Stent Tracker" is a patient safety application that provides a secure and simplified interface, which can significantly reduce the incidence of RUS. Further developments could include automated notifications to patients and staff, color-coding, and integrated information with electronic patient charts.

Indexed as

Patient safetyRenal StoneStentsUreteroscopyUrolithiasis

Identifiers

PMID28396695
PMCPMC5381069

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.