ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2019
Optimisation of shock wave lithotripsy: a systematic review of technical aspects to improve outcomes.
Review 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 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Trial
- YouTube and TikTok as patient resources: assessment of online video content on extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy.Central European journal of urology · 2026Article
- Optimizing pediatric shock wave lithotripsy: stepwise energy escalation vs. conventional fixed energy.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Huge hematoma following extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy leading to nephrectomy.Urology case reports · 2025Article
- Clinical outcomes of intravenous urography-assisted shockwave lithotripsy for radiolucent ureteral stones.Asian journal of urology · 2025Article
- Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy-induced renal blunt trauma in young adult patient: A case report.Urology case reports · 2023Article
- Comparison of shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy in patients with proximal ureteral stones under the COVID-19 pandemic.World journal of urology · 2023Article
- Synchronized extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy may still affect the heart: a case report of perioperative ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- Extremely slow, half-number shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones.Urolithiasis · 2022Article
- Minimally invasive surgery for pediatric renal and ureteric stones: A therapeutic update.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Review
- Outcomes of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones according to ESWL intensity.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Article
- Article
- Extremely-slow, half-number shockwave lithotripsy for asymptomatic renal stones <20 mm.Investigative and clinical urology · 2021Article
- Shock wave lithotripsy for a renal stone in a tetraplegic patient as a trigger for life-threatening posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome.Urology case reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) remains an important treatment option for the management of upper urinary tract stones. The optimisation of certain technical principles can help to improve the results of SWL. We performed a systematic review based on preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) standards for studies reporting on technical aspects of SWL. A literature search was conducted on the PubMed database between January 1984 and November 2018 using 'shockwave lithotripsy' and 'stone' as keywords. Summaries and manuscripts of relevant articles were reviewed in order to select studies with the best level of evidence in each theme covered during the review. From 4,135 titles, 165 abstracts and full-text articles were reviewed. Overall, SWL has good outcomes in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones. It remains the only truly non-invasive stone treatment. While stone-free rate (SFR) might not be equivalent to ureteroscopy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy outcomes, SWL can be optimised by changing several technical factors, including type of machine, patient position, number, rate and energy of shocks, stone targeting, and patient analgesia. For each of these included SWL themes, relevant and selected studies with the highest level of evidence were described and discussed. Paired with these improved technical factors and appropriate patient selection, SWL, with its low complication rates, remains an excellent treatment option in 2019.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.