ArticleUrolithiasis2018
Comparison of intermediate- and low-frequency shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric kidney stones.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Which frequency is better for pediatric shock wave lithotripsy? Intermediate or low: a prospective randomized study.World journal of urology · 2021Trial
- What is the optimal frequency in shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric renal stones? A prospective randomized study.Urolithiasis · 2021Trial
- Pediatric Nephrolithiasis.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Which frequency is better for pediatric shock wave lithotripsy? Low intermediate or high: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Review
- Extremely slow, half-number shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones.Urolithiasis · 2022Article
- Efficacy of Super-Mini-PCNL and Ureteroscopy in Kidney Stone Sufferers and Risk Factors of Postoperative Infection.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study to compare low and intermediate shock wave frequency rates in terms of success and complications for treating pediatric kidney stones. This retrospective study was performed on 58 consecutive pediatric patients (24 girls, 34 boys) who underwent shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) for kidney stones with an electrohydraulic lithotripter between April 2014 and March 2016. In the first year, all children underwent SWL with a frequency of 90 SWs/min as an intermediate frequency (Group 90), and in the second year all children were treated by SWL using 60 SWs/min as a low frequency (Group 60). The mean age of the patients was 5.87 ± 4.5 years. There were no significant differences in age, gender, stone characteristics and SWL energy level between the groups. Stone-free status was achieved in 14, 6 and 4 children in group 60; and in 10, 6 and 4 children in group 90 after one, two and three sessions, respectively. The stone-free rates were 80 and 74.1% after SWL and 90 and 88.9% after additional treatment in groups 60 and 90, respectively. The total median shock pulses were 2000 and 3600 in groups 60 and 90, respectively (p = 0.115). Efficiency quotients were 51.93 and 44.47 in groups 60 and 90, respectively. The mean total anesthesia times and complication rates did not differ between the groups. The low and intermediate frequency of SWL provided similar stone clearance in pediatric renal stones with similar anesthesia times. However, low SWL tended to need fewer shock pulses (2000/3600) for stone clearance, but the trend was not significant.
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.