Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29497768›Full record

Trial reportUrolithiasis2019

The "all-seeing needle" micro-PCNL versus flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower calyceal stones of ≤ 2 cm.

Kehua Jiang, Hongbo Chen, Xiao Yu, Zhiqiang Chen, Zhangqun Ye, Huixing Yuan

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Urolithiasis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kehua JiangDepartment of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China.
Hongbo ChenDepartment of Urology, The Central Hospital of Enshi Autonomous Prefecture, Enshi, Hubei, China.
Xiao YuDepartment of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China.
Zhiqiang ChenDepartment of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China.
Zhangqun YeDepartment of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China.
Huixing YuanDepartment of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430030, China. hobby8097@sina.com.
Huazhong University of Science and Technology · CNTongji Hospital · CNThe Central Hospital of Enshi Tujia and Miao Autonomous Prefecture · CN

Funding

Hubei Province health and family planning scientific research project WJ2017M257Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province of China 2017CFB516Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province of China 2017CFB638
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objectives of the study are to compare the safety and efficacy of "all-seeing needle" optical puncture system micro-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (micro-PCNL) and flexible ureterorenoscopy (FURS) for the treatment of lower calyceal stones of ≤ 2 cm and to determine the advantages and disadvantages of each. 116 patients in total with lower calyceal stones of ≤ 2 cm were randomly divided into two equal groups, "all-seeing needle" optical puncture system micro-PCNL and FURS. In both groups, holmium laser was utilized for lithotripsy. The perioperative parameters were compared between the two groups. Compared to the "all-seeing needle" micro-PCNL group, the mean operative time was significantly longer in the FURS group (P = 0.000). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups with respect to mean hemoglobin reduction (P = 0.087), complications (P = 0.731) and LOS (P = 0.856). The overall SFR of the "all-seeing needle" micro-PCNL group and FURS group was 84.5% (49/58) and 79.3% (46/58), respectively, without any significant difference between the groups (P = 0.469). For treating lower calyceal stones of ≤ 2 cm, the "all-seeing needle" micro-PCNL group had shorter operative time than FURS, while no significant differences between the two groups with respect to mean hemoglobin reduction, complications, LOS and SFR were found.

Indexed as

AdultFemaleHumansKidney CalculiKidney CalicesLasers, Solid-StateLength of StayLithotripsy, LaserMaleMiddle AgedNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUreteroscopyAll-seeing needleFURSLower calyceal stonesMicro-PCNLOptical puncture system

Identifiers

PMID29497768
OpenAlexW2791626242

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.