Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29071136›Full record

ReviewArab journal of urology2017

Medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones: Analysing the evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analysis of powered double-blinded randomised controlled trials.

Tarik Amer, Banan Osman, Allan Johnstone, Martin Mariappan, Ameet Gupta, Nikolaos Brattis, Gareth Jones, Bhaskar K Somani, Francis X Keeley, Omar M Aboumarzouk

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Arab journal of urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Canadian Urological Association guideline: Management of ureteral calculi - Abridged version.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2021
    Article
  9. Canadian Urological Association guideline: Management of ureteral calculi - Full-text.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Tarik AmerGlasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
Banan OsmanBristol Urological Institutes, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
Allan JohnstoneGlasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
Martin MariappanGlasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
Ameet GuptaNew Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton, UK.
Nikolaos BrattisBristol Urological Institutes, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
Gareth JonesGlasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
Bhaskar K SomaniUniversity Hospitals Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK.
Francis X KeeleyBristol Urological Institutes, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK.
Omar M AboumarzoukGlasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, UK.
Glasgow Royal Infirmary · GBNorth Bristol NHS Trust · GBIslamic University of Gaza · PSNew Cross Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and safety of medical expulsive therapy (MET) in low risk of bias (RoB) randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

methodsA Cochrane style systematic review was conducted on published literature from 1990 to 2016, to include low RoB and a power calculation. A pooled meta-analysis was conducted.

resultsThe MET group included 1387 vs 1381 patients in the control group. The analysis reveals α-blockers increased stone expulsion rates (78% vs 74%) (

conclusionThe primary findings show a small overall benefit for α-blockers as MET for ureteric stones but no benefit with CCBs. α-blockers show a greater benefit for large (>5 mm) ureteric stones and those located in the distal ureter, but no benefit for smaller or more proximal stones. α-blockers are associated with a greater risk of side-effects compared to placebo or CCBs.

Indexed as

ARR, absolute risk reductionCalcium channel blockersCCB, calcium channel blockerMD, mean differenceMedical expulsive therapy (MET)MeSH, medical subject headingsMET, medical expulsive therapyNNT, numbers needed to treatRCT, randomised controlled trialRoB, risk of biasRR, risk ratioUreteric stonesUrinary stonesα-Blockers

Identifiers

PMID29071136
PMCPMC5653615
OpenAlexW2606133125

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.