ReviewAsian journal of urology2018
Indications and contraindications for shock wave lithotripsy and how to improve outcomes.
Review in Asian journal of urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Photonic Lithotripsy: Near-Infrared Laser Activated Nanomaterials for Kidney Stone Comminution.Nano letters · 2023Article
- The feasibility of ultrasound-guided mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for ESWL-resistant lower calyx renal stones of up to two centimeters: a single center experience.Journal of medicine and life · 2023Article
- Extremely slow, half-number shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones.Urolithiasis · 2022Article
- Translational Applications of Extracorporeal Shock Waves in Dental Medicine: A Literature Review.Biomedicines · 2022Review
- Article
- Automated Generation of Personalized Shock Wave Lithotripsy Protocols: Treatment Planning Using Deep Learning.JMIR medical informatics · 2021Article
- It Comes As a Shock: Kidney Repair Using Shockwave Therapy.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2020Review
- Medical and surgical management of urolithiasis.Asian journal of urology · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
For over 35 years shock wave lithotripsy has proven to be an effective, safe and truly minimally invasive option for the treatment of nephrolithiasis. Various technical factors as well as patient selection can impact the success of the procedure. We used published work focusing on outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy, risk of complications, and strategies for improving stone fragmentation to create this review. Multiple patient and technical factors have been found to impact success of treatment. Skin to stone distance, stone density and composition, size and location of the stone within the urinary system all influence stone free rates. A slower rate with a gradual increasing voltage, precise targeting, proper coupling will improve stone fragmentation and decrease risk of complications. The selection of appropriate patients through a shared decision making process and attention to the technical factors that improve stone free rates is key to providing an effective treatment and patient satisfaction.
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.