Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29177820›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of urology2018

Single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review.

N F Davis, M R Quinlan, C Browne, N R Bhatt, R P Manecksha, F T D'Arcy, N Lawrentschuk, D M Bolton

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Single-useJournal of medicine and life · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

N F DavisDepartment of Urology, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
M R QuinlanDepartment of Urology, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
C BrowneDepartment of Urology, Tallaght Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
N R BhattDepartment of Urology, Tallaght Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
R P ManeckshaDepartment of Urology, Tallaght Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
F T D'ArcyDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Galway, Galway, Ireland.
N LawrentschukDepartment of Urology, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
D M BoltonDepartment of Urology, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia. damienmbolton@gmail.com.
Austin Hospital · AUTallaght University Hospital · IETrinity College Dublin · IEUniversity Hospital Galway · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeData assessing the effectiveness of single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopy (FURS) are limited. This study evaluates and compares single-use FURS with conventional reusable FURS.

methodsA systematic search using electronic databases (Pubmed and Embase) was performed for studies evaluating single-use FURS in the setting of urinary tract stone disease. Outcome measures included a comparative evaluation of their mechanical, optical and clinical outcomes.

resultsEleven studies on 466 patients met inclusion criteria. In vitro comparative data were available on three single-use flexible ureteropyeloscopes (LithoVue™, Polyscope™ and SemiFlex™) and clinical data were available on two (LithoVue™ and Polyscope™). The overall stone-free rate and complication rate associated with single-use FURS was 87 ± 15% and 9.3 ± 9%, respectively. There were no significant differences in procedure duration, stone size, stone clearance and complication rates when single-use FURS and reusable FURS were compared (duration: 73 ± 27 versus 74 ± 13 min, p = 0.99; stone size: 1.36 ± 0.2 versus 1.34 ± 0.18 cm, p = 0.93; stone-free rate: 77.8 ± 18 versus 68.5 ± 33%, p = 0.76; complication rate 15.3 ± 10.6 versus 15 ± 1.6%, p = 0.3).

conclusionsSingle-use FURS demonstrates comparable efficacy with reusable FURS in treating renal calculi. Further studies on clinical efficacy and cost are needed to determine whether single-use FURS will reliably replace its reusable counterpart.

Indexed as

UreteroscopyDisposable EquipmentHumansKidney PelvisTreatment OutcomeUreterUreteroscopesUrinary CalculiDisposable flexible ureteroscopeFlexible pyeloscopyFlexible ureteropyeloscopyFlexible ureteroscopySingle-use flexible pyeloscopy

Identifiers

PMID29177820
OpenAlexW2769819637

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.