Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29132344›Full record

SynthesisBMC urology2017

Tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an update meta-analysis.

Yang Xun, Qing Wang, Henglong Hu, Yuchao Lu, Jiaqiao Zhang, Baolong Qin, Yudi Geng, Shaogang Wang

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC urology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Ambulatory percutaneous nephrolithotomy is safe and effective in patients with extended selection criteria.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2022
    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

8 authors.

Yang XunDepartment of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No.1095 Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan, China.
Qing WangDepartment of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No.1095 Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan, China.
Henglong HuDepartment of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No.1095 Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan, China.
Yuchao LuDepartment of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No.1095 Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan, China.
Jiaqiao ZhangDepartment of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No.1095 Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan, China.
Baolong QinDepartment of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No.1095 Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan, China.
Yudi GengReproductive medicine center, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China.
Shaogang WangDepartment of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, No.1095 Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan, China. sgwangtjm@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3206-1495

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo update a previously published systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL).

methodsA systematic literature search of EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was performed to confirm relevant studies. The scientific literature was screened in accordance with the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. After quality assessment and data extraction from the eligible studies, a meta-analysis was conducted using Stata SE 12.0.

resultsFourteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1148 patients were included. Combined results demonstrated that tubeless PCNL was significantly associated with shorter operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD], -3.79 min; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.73 to -0.85; P = 0.012; I

conclusionsTubeless PCNL is an available and safe option in carefully evaluated and selected patients. It is significantly associated with the advantages of shorter hospital stay, shorter time to return to normal activity, lower postoperative pain scores, less analgesia requirement, and reduced urine leakage.

Indexed as

Blood TransfusionHumansKidney CalculiLength of StayNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousOperative TimePostoperative PainTreatment OutcomeMeta-analysisPCNLPercutaneous nephrolithotomyTubelessUpdate

Identifiers

PMID29132344
PMCPMC5683212

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.