Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30897293›Full record

SynthesisThe Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences2019

Efficacy and safety of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors for the treatment of distal ureteral calculi of 5 to 10 mm in size: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Jia-Kun Li, Shi Qiu, Kun Jin, Xiao-Nan Zheng, Xiang Tu, Si-Wei Bi, Xin-Yang Liao, Yi-Ge Bao, Lu Yang, Qiang Wei

Open access · goldAbstract readNetwork Meta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Kaohsiung journal of medical sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 36% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jia-Kun LiDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China.
Shi QiuDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China.
Kun JinDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China.
Xiao-Nan ZhengDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China.
Xiang TuDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China.
Si-Wei BiDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China.
Xin-Yang LiaoDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China.
Yi-Ge BaoDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China.
Lu YangDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China.
Qiang WeiDepartment of Urology, Institute of Urology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China.
West China Hospital of Sichuan University · CNSichuan University · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81200551National Natural Science Foundation of China 81270841National Natural Science Foundation of China 81300627National Natural Science Foundation of China 81370855Science and Technology Department of Sichuan Province 2013SZ0006Science and Technology Department of Sichuan Province 2014JY0219
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To evaluate the Efficacy and safety of phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors as a medical therapy for distal ureteral calculi by means of a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). We searched the Embase, Medline, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published before May, 2017. Stone passage rate as the primary outcome. We used random effects model for pairwise meta-analyses and Bayesian random effects model for NMA. We evaluated the quality of evidence by the GRADE framework for each network estimate. Five RCTs (861 patients) comparing four different interventions. The results of NMA showed that compared with tamsulosin alone, tamsulosin combined with tadalafil group was associated with significantly higher stone passage rate (odds radio [OR] 2.55, 95% credible intervals [Crl] 1.11 to 5.89). When considering stone expulsion rate, compared with tamsulosin, silodosin was ranked best (OR 3.58, 95% Crl 1.13 to 11.91), followed by tamsulosin combined with tadalafil (OR 2.55, 95% Crl 1.11 to 5.89) and tadalafil alone (OR 1.86, 95% Crl 0.95 to 4.25). No significant difference was found considering safety profiles between any interventions. This meta-analysis indicates that tamsulosin combined with tadalafil is an effective treatment option for ureteral stones with a low occurrence of side effects. Clinicians should take all known safety and compliance of patients into account when choosing an optimal strategy. Since sample size of included studies, further RCTs are strongly encouraged to address the clinical question.

Indexed as

Phosphodiesterase 5 InhibitorsTadalafilTamsulosinUreteral CalculiUrological AgentsBayes TheoremDrug Therapy, CombinationFemaleHumansMaleRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomePhosphodiesterase 5 InhibitorsTadalafilTamsulosinUrological Agentsnetwork meta-analysisphosphodiesterase 5 inhibitorsureteral calculi

Identifiers

PMID30897293
PMCPMC11900753
OpenAlexW2924806010

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.