Trial reportInternational urology and nephrology2018
Evaluation of perioperative prophylaxis with fosfomycin tromethamine in ureteroscopic stone removal: an investigator-driven prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study.
Trial report in International urology and nephrology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antibiotic prophylaxis in stone surgery: a systematic review of the literature.World journal of urology · 2025Pooled it
- Antibacterial effect of fosfomycin tromethamine on the bacteria inside urinary infection stones.International urology and nephrology · 2020Trial
- Using fosfomycin to prevent infection following ureterorenoscopy in response to shortage of cephalosporins: a retrospective preliminary study.BMC urology · 2024Article
- Complications of ureteroscopy: a complete overview.World journal of urology · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of fosfomycin tromethamine with other standard-of-care antibiotics in patients undergoing ureteroscopic lithotripsy.
methodsThis study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Eligible patients scheduled for ureteroscopic lithotripsy were randomly assigned to receive either fosfomycin (fosfomycin group, N = 101 patients) or standard-of-care antibiotic therapy as prophylaxis (control group, N = 115 patients). The incidence of infectious complications and adverse events was analyzed between the two groups, as well as the cost-benefit analysis.
resultsThe incidence of infections following lithotripsy was 3.0% in the fosfomycin group and 6.1% in the control group (p > 0.05). Only asymptomatic bacteriuria was reported in fosfomycin group. In the control group was reported asymptomatic bacteriuria (3.5%), fever (0.9%), bacteremia (0.9%), and genitourinary infection (0.9%). The rate of adverse events was very low, with no adverse event reported in the fosfomycin group and only one in the control group (forearm phlebitis). The average cost per patient of antibiotic therapy with fosfomycin was 151.45 ± 8.62 yuan (22.7 ± 1.3 USD), significantly lower compared to the average cost per patient of antibiotics used in the control group 305.10 ± 245.95 yuan (45.7 ± 36.9 USD; p < 0.001).
conclusionsTwo oral doses of 3 g fosfomycin tromethamine showed good efficacy and safety and low cost in perioperative prophylaxis of infections following ureteroscopic stone removal.
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.