Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28766005›Full record

ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2017

[What is the current status of shock wave lithotripsy?]

A Neisius

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. [Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2018
    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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

A NeisiusAbteilung für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Krankenhaus der Barmherzigen Brüder Trier, Akademisches Lehrkrankenhaus der Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Nordallee 1, 54292, Trier, Deutschland. a.neisius@bk-trier.de.
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundShock wave lithotripsy (SWL) became the therapy of choice for the majority of patients with urolithiasis early after its introduction in the early 1980s. Since then, SWL remains the only noninvasive therapy modality for the treatment of urinary stones. Although lithotripters became more versatile and affordable-making them available worldwide-indications for SWL have shifted as well. In most western countries, endoscopic techniques took the lead in stone therapy due to high (early) stone-free and better reimbursement rates. Notwithstanding SWL remains the first-line therapy for most intrarenal and many ureteral stones. PURPOSE: This contemporary review illuminates technical aspects and improvements of lithotripsy over recent years in context with the current guideline recommendations.

resultsTechnical advances in lithotripsy such as shock wave generation, focusing, coupling, stone localization and modifications in therapy regimens are reviewed and presented.

conclusionsUrologists are recommended to carefully select the appropriate therapy modality for a patient with urolithiasis. A more comprehensive understanding of the physics of shock waves could lead to much better results, thus, endorsing SWL as first-line therapy for urolithiasis instead of contemporary endourology treatment options.

Indexed as

Equipment DesignForecastingGermanyGuideline AdherenceHumansLithotripsyTreatment OutcomeUrinary CalculiKidney stonesStone therapySWLUreteral stonesUreterorenoscopy

Identifiers

PMID28766005
OpenAlexW2805203611

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.