Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30729326›Full record

SynthesisCurrent urology reports2019

'Negative Ureteroscopy' for Stone Disease: Evidence from a Systematic Review.

Patrick Rice, Sarah Prattley, Bhaskar K Somani

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Current urology reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. This stone (may?) too shall pass.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2021
    Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Patrick RiceDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK.
Sarah PrattleyDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK.
Bhaskar K SomaniDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Southampton, UK. bhaskarsomani@yahoo.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewWhile ureteroscopy (URS) is a common procedure for ureteric stones, this window between diagnosis and treatment leaves the possibility for a 'negative', 'stoneless' or 'diagnostic' URS. We perform a systematic review to look at the rate of 'negative ureteroscopy' and risk factors associated with it. RECENT

findingsFrom a total of 3599 articles and 68 abstracts, 4 studies (1336 patients) were selected. The negative URS rate varied from 4 to 14%. Common predictors seem to be female gender, small stones, radiolucent stones and distal ureteric stones. Although infrequent, negative ureteroscopy should be avoided in patients with ureteric stones by performing a low-dose CT scan on the day of surgery. This should especially be performed for females and those with smaller, radiolucent or distal ureteric stones.

Indexed as

UreteroscopyHumansPreoperative CareRisk FactorsTomography, X-Ray ComputedUreteral CalculiDiagnosticNegativeStoneStonelessUretericUreteroscopy

Identifiers

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.