Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30789937›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2019

Comparison of stone-free rates following shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Doo Yong Chung, Dong Hyuk Kang, Kang Su Cho, Won Sik Jeong, Hae Do Jung, Jong Kyou Kwon, Seon Heui Lee, Joo Yong Lee

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
65citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
11.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

65 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 145 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Kidney stone disease: phenomenological perspectives.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

5 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Doo Yong ChungDepartment of Urology, Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-8545-5797
Dong Hyuk KangDepartment of Urology, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea.
Kang Su ChoDepartment of Urology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Won Sik JeongDepartment of Urology, Kwangju Christian Hospital, Gwangju, Korea.
Hae Do JungDepartment of Urology, Yongin Severance Hospital, Yonsei University Health System, Yongin, Korea.
Jong Kyou KwonDepartment of Urology, Severance Check-Up, Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea.
Seon Heui LeeDepartment of Nursing Science, Gachon University College of Nursing, Incheon, Korea.
Joo Yong LeeDepartment of Urology, Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-3470-1767
Yonsei University · KRGachon University · KRInha University · KRKwangju Christian Hospital · KRSeverance Hospital · KRYonsei University Health System · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing stone-free rates following retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) treatments of renal stones. MATERIALS AND

methodsClinical trials comparing RIRS, SWL, and PCNL for treatment of renal stones were identified from electronic databases. Stone-free rates for the procedures were compared by qualitative and quantitative syntheses (meta-analyses). Outcome variables are shown as risk ratios (ORs) with 95% credible intervals (CIs).

resultsA total of 35 studies were included in this network meta-analysis of success and stone-free rates following three different treatments of renal stones. Six studies compared PCNL versus SWL, ten studies compared PCNL versus RIRS, fourteen studies compared RIRS versus SWL, and five studies compared PCNL, SWL, and RIRS. The quality scores within subscales were relatively low-risk. Network meta-analyses indicated that stone-free rates of RIRS (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.22-0.64) and SWL (OR 0.12; 95% CI 0.067-0.19) were lower than that of PCNL. In addition, stone-free rate of SWL was lower than that of RIRS (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.20-0.47). Stone free rate of PCNL was also superior to RIRS in subgroup analyses including ≥ 2 cm stone (OR 4.680; 95% CI 2.873-8.106), lower pole stone (OR 1.984; 95% CI 1.043-2.849), and randomized studies (OR 2.219; 95% CI 1.348-4.009). In rank-probability test, PCNL was ranked as No. 1 and SWL was ranked as No. 3.

conclusionsPCNL showed the highest success and stone-free rate in the surgical treatment of renal stones. In contrast, SWL had the lowest success and stone-free rate.

Indexed as

LithotripsyNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousNephrostomy, PercutaneousHumansKidney CalculiOdds RatioPostoperative ComplicationsTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID30789937
PMCPMC6383992
OpenAlexW2915542170

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.