ReviewCentral European journal of urology2017
Ureteroscopy for stone disease: expanding roles in the modern era.
Review in Central European journal of urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Correlation of Operative Time with Outcomes of Ureteroscopy and Stone Treatment: a Systematic Review of Literature.Current urology reports · 2020Pooled it
- Investigation of irrigation fluid temperature variations caused by thulium fiber laser with various settings and comparison with Ho:YAG laser: AnCentral European journal of urology · 2025Article
- Assessment of the incidence and risk factors of postoperative urosepsis in patients undergoing ureteroscopic lithotripsy.Central European journal of urology · 2024Article
- Role of Ureteroscopy (URS) and Stone Treatment in Patients with Recurrent UTIs: Outcomes over a 10-Year Period.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- A stone pushed back to the collecting system - long therapeutic path in centers with limited access to flexible instruments.Central European journal of urology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe prevalence of urolithiasis is increasing worldwide and is causing significant morbidity and cost to the healthcare systems. While ureteroscopy (URS) has been established as a treatment option, our review highlights the expanding role of URS for the management of more complex stones and patients in the modern era. MATERIAL AND
methodsUreteroscopy has shown to have good outcomes with stone free rates (SFR) comparable to other treatment modalities. Relevant publications have been identified. Their findings were critically appraised and used to formulate clinically oriented conclusions.
resultsThe use of URS has increased and now includes URS management for large stones, bilateral stone disease, obesity, pregnancy, pediatrics, solitary kidney, horseshoe kidney and patients with a bleeding diathesis.
conclusionsWith advances in URS technique and technology, its role has expanded to offer treatment in difficult clinical scenarios with good outcomes.
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.