ReviewUrolithiasis2018
How can and should we optimize extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy?
Review in Urolithiasis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
28 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Current Preclinical and Clinical Evidence of Shock Wave Therapy for Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review.Cells · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy of acupuncture for pain relief in patients receiving extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Ureteroscopy is more cost effective than shock wave lithotripsy for stone treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2018Pooled it
- Shockwave lithotripsy compared with ureteroscopic stone treatment for adults with ureteric stones: the TISU non-inferiority RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2022Trial
- Renal protective effect of N-acetylcysteine with stepwise ramping voltage against extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy-induced renal injury: a prospective randomized trial.International urology and nephrology · 2020Trial
- Effect of coupling fluid tonicity on pain and fragmentation outcomes in ESWL: a prospective comparative study.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
- Article
- Clinical outcomes of intravenous urography-assisted shockwave lithotripsy for radiolucent ureteral stones.Asian journal of urology · 2025Article
- Article
- Challenging management of coralliform kidney and ureteral stones.Archive of clinical cases · 2024Article
- Experience of high polymer gel pad assisted ultrasound monitoring in the treatment of infant urolithiasis during extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.Urolithiasis · 2023Article
- Global trends in research on extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) from 2000 to 2021.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2023Article
- The Lifetime History of the First Italian Public Extra-Corporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) Lithotripter as a Mirror of the Evolution of Endourology over the Last Decade.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- Article
- First Series Using Ultrasonic Propulsion and Burst Wave Lithotripsy to Treat Ureteral Stones.The Journal of urology · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Optimization of shockwave lithotripsy use for single medium sized hard renal stone with stone density ≥ 1000 HU. A prospective study.World journal of urology · 2022Article
- Minimally invasive surgery for pediatric renal and ureteric stones: A therapeutic update.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Review
- Does quality of life in patients undergoing shock wave lithotripsy change with repeat procedures: a prospective pilot study from a teaching hospital.Central European journal of urology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is well recognized that the popularity of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), despite its non-invasive character, has decreased during recent years. This is partly explained by the technological achievements in endoscopy and urologists' enthusiasm for such procedures. Another explanation is that many urologists have been insufficiently successful with SWL. The latter effect might to some extent be a result of the performance of the lithotripter used, but in too many cases, it is evident that the principles of how shock wave lithotripsy should be carried out are poorly applied. The purpose of this article is to emphasize some important aspects on how SWL best should be used. Based on decades of experience, it stands to reason that success with SWL does not come automatically and attention has to be paid to all details of this technique.
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.