Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31656742›Full record

ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2019

Characteristics of current digital single-use flexible ureteroscopes versus their reusable counterparts: an

Laurian B Dragos, Bhaskar K Somani, Etienne X Keller, Vincent M J De Coninck, Maria Rodriguez-Monsalve Herrero, Guido M Kamphuis, Ewa Bres-Niewada, Emre T Sener, Steeve Doizi, Oliver J Wiseman and 1 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Single-use flexible ureteroscopes: ComparativeAsian journal of urology · 2023
    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

11 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.

Laurian B DragosUrology Department, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Bhaskar K SomaniPETRA - Progress in Endourology, Technology and Research Association, Paris, France.
Etienne X KellerUrology Department, Tenon Hospital, Paris, France.
Vincent M J De ConinckUrology Department, Tenon Hospital, Paris, France.
Maria Rodriguez-Monsalve HerreroUrology Department, Tenon Hospital, Paris, France.
Guido M KamphuisPETRA - Progress in Endourology, Technology and Research Association, Paris, France.
Ewa Bres-NiewadaUrology Department, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
Emre T SenerPETRA - Progress in Endourology, Technology and Research Association, Paris, France.
Steeve DoiziPETRA - Progress in Endourology, Technology and Research Association, Paris, France.
Oliver J WisemanUrology Department, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Olivier TraxerPETRA - Progress in Endourology, Technology and Research Association, Paris, France.
Hôpital Tenon · FRSorbonne Université · FRAcademic Medical Center · NLAddenbrooke's Hospital · GBMarmara University · TRMedical University of Warsaw · PLUniversity Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GBVictor Babeș University of Medicine and Pharmacy Timișoara · RO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSingle-use flexible ureterorenoscopes (fURSs) have been recently introduced aiming to offer solutions to the sterilization, fragility and cost issues of the reusable fURSs. In order to be a viable alternative, the single-use scopes must prove similar capabilities when compared to their reusable counterparts. The goal of our

methodsWe compared

resultsOverall, the single-use fURSs had superior

conclusions

Indexed as

digital flexible ureteroscopesreusableSingle-use

Identifiers

PMID31656742
PMCPMC6790413
OpenAlexW2975929963

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.