Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31873859›Full record

Trial reportInternational urology and nephrology2020

Efficacy of silodosin or mirabegron in medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones: a prospective, randomized-controlled study.

Göksel Bayar, Abdulmecit Yavuz, Sedat Cakmak, Yilmaz Ofluoglu, Muhammet Fatih Kilinc, Emrah Kucuk, Mustafa Aydın

Abstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in International urology and nephrology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Silodosin as a medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India
    Review
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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Göksel BayarUrology Department, Sancaktepe Martyr Prof Dr Ilhan Varank Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. goxelle@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1506-9732
Abdulmecit YavuzUrology Department, Gelisim Hospital, Iskenderun, Hatay, Turkey.
Sedat CakmakUrology Department, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Yilmaz OfluogluUrology Department, Medical Park Trabzon, Trabzon, Turkey.
Muhammet Fatih KilincUrology Department, Ankara Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.
Emrah KucukUrology Department, Samsun Training and Research Hospital, Samsun, Turkey.
Mustafa AydınUrology Department, Samsun Training and Research Hospital, Samsun, Turkey.
Samsun University · TREducation Training And Research · USHaseki Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi · TRMinistry of Health · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of silodosin or mirabegron as a medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stones in adults. PATIENTS-

methodThis is a prospective, randomized multicentric study. Patients who had ureter stones in size between 4 and 10 mm were assessed prospectively. Patients were divided into three groups with equal randomization. Group 1 was the control group; group 2 took silodosin 8 mg, and group 3 took mirabegron 50 mg once daily.

resultsAll 169 patients were included in the final analysis. The spontaneous expulsion rate was similar between groups. In patients with distal localization, the stone expulsion interval was shorter in the silodosin group (7.1 ± 4.5 days) than the control (12 ± 8.7) (p = 0.034). In patients with stone size smaller than 6 mm, the stone expulsion interval was shorter in the silodosin group (5.8 ± 4) than the control (12.2 ± 2.8) (p = 0.004); the analgesic requirement was less in the silodosin group (1.4 ± 1.3) than in the control (3.6 ± 2.8) (p = 0.028). Mirabegron had no effect on stone expulsion interval in any analysis. In patients with distal localization or stone size bigger or equal to 6 mm, the need for an analgesic was less in the mirabegron group (1.8 ± 1.9) (1.9 ± 1.8) than in the control (3.6 ± 2.3) (3.2 ± 1.8), respectively (p = 0.004) (p = 0.017).

conclusionsSilodosin or mirabegron does not improve the stone expulsion rate. Silodosin improves the stone expulsion interval and decreases the need for an analgesic or < 6 mm stones. Mirabegron has no effect on the stone expulsion interval, but decreases the need for an analgesic in patients with distal or sized ≥ 6 mm stones.

Indexed as

AcetanilidesAdultFemaleHumansIndolesMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesThiazolesTreatment OutcomeUreteral CalculiAcetanilidesIndolesmirabegronsilodosinThiazolesExpulsive therapyMirabegronSilodosinUreter stone

Identifiers

PMID31873859
OpenAlexW2997671845

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.