ReviewUrolithiasis2019
Vision for the future on urolithiasis: research, management, education and training-some personal views.
Review in Urolithiasis, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice regarding stone formation and recurrence among urolithiasis patients: a cross-sectional study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Application of Virtual Reality, Augmented Reality, and Mixed Reality in Endourology and Urolithiasis: An Update by YAU Endourology and Urolithiasis Working Group.Frontiers in surgery · 2022Review
- Oral chemolysis is an effective, non-invasive therapy for urinary stones suspected of uric acid content.Urolithiasis · 2020Article
- Novel Education and Simulation Tools in Urologic Training.Current urology reports · 2019Review
- Review of the effect of 3D medical printing and virtual reality on urology training with ‘MedTRain3DModsim’ Erasmus + European Union ProjectTurkish journal of medical sciences · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The field of urolithiasis has undergone many rapid changes in the last 3 decades. In this article, three eminent experts in various fields of urolithiasis research describe their respective visions for the future in stone research, stone treatment and surgical training. Many stone researchers have seen and regretted that there has not been a real breakthrough for decades now. Exceptions are the application of citrate prophylaxis and the abandonment of calcium-avoiding diet in stone formers. Certain areas of stone research have been exhausted and the body of literature available should suffice as background knowledge in those. Yet, to find meaningful mechanisms of clinically applicable stone prevention, the limited funds which are currently available should be used to research priority areas, of which crystal-cell interaction is envisioned by one of the present authors as being a crucial direction in future stone research. In the opinion of the second author, surgical stone treatment is very much technology-driven. This applies to the evolution of existing technologies and instruments. In addition, robotics, IT and communication software, and artificial intelligence are promising and are steadily making a meaningful impact in medicine in general, and endourology in particular. Finally, the third author believes that despite the exciting advances in technology, the role of the surgeon can never be replaced. The idea of a fully automated, artificially thinking and robotically performing system treating patients medically and surgically will not appeal to urologists or patients but may at least be a partial reality. His vision therefore is that surgical training will have to take on a new dimension, away from the patient and towards virtual reality, until the skill set is acceptably developed.
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.