Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29450733›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of urology2018

Miniaturised percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteropyeloscopy: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing clinical efficacy and safety profile.

N F Davis, M R Quinlan, C Poyet, N Lawrentschuk, D M Bolton, D Webb, G S Jack

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic 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 17 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Stone clearance times with mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Comparison of a 1.5 mm ballistic/ultrasonic mini-probe vs. laser.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2021
    Article
  17. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the long-term outcomes of ileal conduit and orthotopic neobladder urinary diversion.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2021
    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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

N F DavisDepartment of Urology, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, 3084, Australia. nialldavis@rcsi.ie.
M R QuinlanDepartment of Urology, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, 3084, Australia.
C PoyetDepartment of Urology, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, 3084, Australia.
N LawrentschukDepartment of Urology, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, 3084, Australia.
D M BoltonDepartment of Urology, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, 3084, Australia.
D WebbDepartment of Urology, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, 3084, Australia.
G S JackDepartment of Urology, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, 3084, Australia.
Austin Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study aims to comparatively evaluate clinical outcomes of mini-PCNL and FURS for treating urinary tract calculi in a single session.

methodsA systematic search using electronic databases was performed for studies comparing mini-PCNL and FURS for the treatment of urinary tract calculi. The primary outcome measurements were stone-free rates (SFRs) and complication rates for both techniques. Secondary outcome measurements were to compare patient demographics, operative duration, and inpatient stay. Meta-analysis was performed with Review Manager version 5.3 software.

resultsSixteen studies on 1598 patients (n = 877 for mini-PCNL and n = 721 for FURS) met inclusion criteria. Demographics including age (p = 0.26), body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.51), and gender ratio (p = 0.6), were similar in both groups. Overall, SFR was significantly greater in the mini-PCNL group compared to the FURS group (n = 763/877, 89.3 ± 8.4% versus n = 559/721, 80.1 ± 13.3% [OR 2.01; 95% CI 1.53-2.64; p < 0.01]). Duration of inpatient stay was significantly greater in the mini-PCNL group compared to the FURS group (n = 877, 4 ± 1.6 days versus n = 721, 2.5 ± 2.2 days, respectively [WMD: 1.77; 95% CI 1.16-2.38, p < 0.01]. Overall complication rates were not significantly different between mini-PCNL and FURS (n = 171/877, 19.5 ± 19.1% versus n = 112/721, 15.5 ± 18.9%, respectively [OR 1.43; 95% CI 0.85-2.4, p = 0.18]).

conclusionsMini-PCNL is associated with greater SFRs and longer inpatient stay compared to FURS. Complication rates were similar for both techniques. The advantages and disadvantages of both technologies should be familiar to urologists and conveyed to patients prior to urological intervention for nephrolithiasis.

Indexed as

Controlled Clinical Trials as TopicFemaleHumansKidney CalculiMaleMiniaturizationNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUreteroscopyUrolithiasisFlexible pyeloscopyFlexible ureteropyeloscopyFlexible ureteroscopyMiniaturised percutaneous nephrolithotomyPercutaneous nephrolithotomy

Identifiers

PMID29450733
OpenAlexW2793815585

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.