Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30620157›Full record

SynthesisInternational braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology

Comparison of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy in treating intermediatesize renal stones (2-3cm): a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Zhu Zewu, Yu Cui, Zeng Feng, Li Yang, Hequn Chen

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. A novel bendable suction sheath in flexible ureteroscopy for renal calculi.The Journal of international medical research · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Zhu ZewuDepartment of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Yu CuiDepartment of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Zeng FengDepartment of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Li YangDepartment of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.
Hequn ChenDepartment of Urology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo systematically assess the effectiveness and safety of retrograde flexible ureteroscopy (FURS) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in treating intermediate-size renal stones (2-3cm). MATERIALS AND

methodsPubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and EMBASE were researched to identify relevant studies up to May 2018. Article selection was performed through the search strategy based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses criteria. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was applied to assess the methodological quality of case-control studies.

resultsSix retrospective case-controlled trials were included for meta-analysis. The pooled results showed that PCNL was associated with a higher initial stone-free rate (SFR). After more complementary treatments, FURS provided a final SFR (OR: 1.69; 95% CI, 0.93-3.05; P = 0.08) comparable to that achieved by PCNL. PCNL was associated with a higher rate of overall intraoperative complications (OR: 1.48; 95% CI, 1.01-2.17; P = 0.04) and longer hospital stay (MD: 2.21 days; 95% CI, 1.11 to 3.30; P < 0.001). Subgroup analysis by Clavien-graded complication showed PCNL had significantly higher rates of minor complications (OR: 1.58; 95% CI, 1.04-2.41; P = 0.03). No significant difference was noted in major complications (OR: 1.14; 95% CI, 0.53-2.45; P = 0.73) or operative times (MD: -9.71 min; 95% CI, -22.02 to 2.60; P = 0.12).

conclusionsMultisession FURS is an effective and safe alternative to PCNL for the management of intermediate-size renal stones (2-3cm). It is advisable to balance the benefits and risks according to the individual characteristics of patients and to decide with patients by discussing the advantages and disadvantages of each procedure.

Indexed as

Nephrolithotomy, PercutaneousHumansKidney CalculiOperative TimeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUreteroscopyKidney CalculiNephrolithotomy,PercutaneousUreteroscopy

Identifiers

PMID30620157
PMCPMC6442149

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.