SynthesisWorld journal of urology2018
Ureteroscopy is more cost effective than shock wave lithotripsy for stone treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis.
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 53 papers, 8 of them syntheses 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
53 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 92 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of outcomes in kidney stone management: stone-free rate vs. cost vs. quality of life: a systematic review from EAU endourology.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Safety and effectiveness of preoperative stenting compared to non-stenting in ureteroscopy for urinary stone disease: a meta-analysis of comparative studies.World journal of urology · 2024Pooled it
- Role of Hounsfield Unit in Predicting Outcomes of Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Renal Calculi: Outcomes of a Systematic Review.Current urology reports · 2023Pooled it
- The Ascent of Artificial Intelligence in Endourology: a Systematic Review Over the Last 2 Decades.Current urology reports · 2021Pooled it
- Outcomes of ureteroscopy for stone disease in anomalous kidneys: a systematic review.World journal of urology · 2020Pooled it
- Role of Endourological Procedures (PCNL and URS) on Renal Function: a Systematic Review.Current urology reports · 2020Pooled it
- Correlation of Operative Time with Outcomes of Ureteroscopy and Stone Treatment: a Systematic Review of Literature.Current urology reports · 2020Pooled it
- Which Type of Water Is Recommended for Patients with Stone Disease (Hard or Soft Water, Tap or Bottled Water): Evidence from a Systematic Review over the Last 3 Decades.Current urology reports · 2020Pooled it
- Clinical and cost-effectiveness of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower pole stones: the PUrE RCTs.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Trial
- Shockwave lithotripsy compared with ureteroscopic stone treatment for adults with ureteric stones: the TISU non-inferiority RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2022Trial
- Is health-related quality of life of patients after single-use flexible ureteroscopy superior to extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy? A randomised prospective study.Urolithiasis · 2021Trial
- Surgical management of urolithiasis in france from 2016 to 2022: epidemiological data from the national PMSI database.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Extracorporeal shockwavelithotripsyWorld journal of critical care medicine · 2026Article
- Retrospective analysis of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy using end-fire, flexible negative-pressure ureteral access sheath for the management of 2-3-cm kidney stones.The Journal of international medical research · 2025Article
- Ureteroscopy in pediatric urolithiasis: techniques, challenges, and outcomes.World journal of urology · 2025Review
- Summary of the clinical practice guideline for the management of urinary stones, third edition.International journal of urology : official journal of the Japanese Urological Association · 2025Article
- Analysis of components and related risk factors of urinary stones: a retrospective study of 1055 patients in southern China.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Effect of preoperative alpha-blockers on ureteroscopy outcomes: A meta-analysis of randomised trials.BJUI compass · 2024Review
- Mixed stones: urinary stone composition, frequency and distribution by gender and age.Urolithiasis · 2024Article
- Feasibility of multi-section continuum robotic ureteroscope in the kidney.Journal of robotic surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA rising incidence of kidney stone disease has led to an increase in ureteroscopy (URS) and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). Our aim was to compare the cost of URS and SWL for treatment of stones.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis based on Cochrane and PRISMA standards was conducted for all studies reporting on comparative cost of treatment between URS and SWL. The cost calculation was based on factual data presented in the individual studies as reported by the authors. English language articles from January 2001 to December 2017 using Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane library and Google Scholar were selected. Our study was registered with PROSPERO (International prospective register of systematic reviews)-registration number CRD 42017080350.
resultsA total of 12 studies involving 2012 patients (SWL-1243, URS-769) were included after initial identification and screening of 725 studies with further assessment of 27 papers. The mean stone size was 10 and 11 mm for SWL and URS, respectively, with stone location in the proximal ureter (n = 8 studies), distal ureter (n = 1), all locations in the ureter (n = 1) and in the kidney (n = 2). Stone free rates (84 vs. 60%) were favourable for URS compared to SWL (p < 0.001). Complication rates (23 vs. 30%) were non-significantly in favor of SWL (p = 0.11) whereas re-treatment rates (11 vs. 27%) were non-significantly in favor of URS (p = 0.29). Mean overall cost was significantly lower for URS ($2801) compared to SWL ($3627) (p = 0.03). The included studies had high risk of bias overall. On sub-analysis, URS was significantly cost-effective for both stones < 10 and ≥ 10 mm and for proximal ureteric stones.
conclusionThere is limited evidence to suggest that URS is less expensive than SWL. However, due to lack of standardization, studies seem to be contradictory and further randomized studies are needed to address this issue.
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.