SynthesisWorld journal of urology2020
Energy output modalities of shockwave lithotripsy in the treatment of urinary stones: escalating or fixed voltage? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The New Lithotripsy Index predicts success of shock wave lithotripsy.World journal of urology · 2022Article
- Outcomes of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for ureteral stones according to ESWL intensity.Translational andrology and urology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the effectiveness and safety of escalating and fixed energy output modalities of shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) in the treatment of urinary stones.
methodsA systematic literature search using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science was performed to obtain relevant studies up to December 2018. Summarized mean differences (MDs) and risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used for comparing continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively.
resultsSix RCTs including 775 patients were identified. In the overall pooled outcomes, no significant difference was detected between escalating and fixed voltage group regarding initial and final success rate (SR) and stone-free status (SFS), auxiliary procedure and complication (hematoma, febrile episode, and pain) rate. However, when shockwave frequency ≥ 90 shocks/min, total shocks per session ≤ 3000, or 1-3 SWL sessions were performed, escalating group was associated with significantly higher SR1 (defined as SFS + fragments ≤ 4 mm); in addition, escalating group brought significantly less hematoma when total shocks per session ≤ 3000.
conclusionsEscalating voltage SWL offered comparable safety and effectiveness to that of fixed voltage SWL. However, escalating voltage SWL could be recommended in following conditions: (1) shockwave frequency ≥ 90 shocks/min, total shocks per session ≤ 3000, or 1-3 SWL sessions, for better stone removal; (2) total shocks per session ≤ 3000, for less hematoma formation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31813025What 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.