ArticleDer Urologe. Ausg. A2018
[Interrater reliability and clinical impact of the Post-Ureteroscopic Lesion Scale (PULS) grading system for ureteral lesions after ureteroscopy : Results of the German prospective multicenter BUSTER project].
Article in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The protective role of ureteral stents in reducing fibrosis and preventing stricture in ureteral injuries of different severities.BMC urology · 2025Article
- [Modern nephrolithiasis in the complex setting of metaphylaxis : Latest epidemiological data and a nationwide survey in private practices].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2019Article
- ["We're going to place a ureteral stent …" : Development and use of the terms stent and splint by German-speaking urologists].Der Urologe. Ausg. A · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Post-ureteroscopic Lesion Scale (PULS) was designed as a standardized classification system for ureteral lesions after uretero(reno)scopy (URS). This study evaluates its routine use and a possible clinical impact based on a representative patient cohort. MATERIALS AND
methodsData of 307 patients in 14 German centers within the BUSTER project were used to test 3 hypotheses (H): PULS score shows a high interrater reliability (IRR) after independent assessment by urologic surgeon and assistance personnel (H1); PULS score is correlated with the frequency of postoperative complications during hospital stay (H2); post-URS stenting of the ureter is associated with higher PULS scores (H3).
resultsMedian age of patients was 54.4 years (interquartile range [IQR] 44.4-65.8; 65.5% male). Median diameter of index stones was 6 mm (IQR 4-8) with 117 (38.4%) pyelo-caliceal and 188 (61.6%) ureteral stones. Overall, 70 and 82.4% of patients had pre-stenting and post-URS stenting, respectively. Stone-free status was achieved in 68.7% after one URS procedure with a complication rate of 10.8% (mostly grade 1-2 according to Clavien-Dindo). PULS scores 0, 1, 2 and 3 were assessed in 40%, 52.1%, 6.9% and 1% of patients, respectively, when estimated by urologic surgeons. PULS score showed a high IRR between the urologic surgeon and assistance personnel (κ = 0.883, p < 0.001), but was not significantly correlated with complications (ρ = 0.09, p = 0.881). In contrast, a significant positive correlation was found between PULS score and post-URS stenting (ρ = 0.287, p < 0.001). A PULS score of 1 multiplied the likelihood of post-URS stenting by 3.24 (95% confidence interval 1.43-7.34; p = 0.005) as opposed to PULS score 0.
conclusionsRemoval of upper urinary tract stones using URS is safe and efficacious. Real-world data provided by this study confirm a high IRR of the PULS score and its clinical impact on the indication for post-URS stenting. A future prospective randomized trial should evaluate a possible standardization of post-URS stenting based on PULS score assessment.
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.