ArticleWorld journal of urology2020
A treatment strategy to help select patients who may not need secondary intervention to remove symptomatic ureteral stones after previous stenting.
Article 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.
- Prediction for spontaneous passage of ureteral stones with indwelling ureteral stent: PASS score.World journal of urology · 2025Article
- Prevalence and predictors of stone passage after double J stenting for symptomatic ureteral stones: a cross-sectional, real-life study.World journal of urology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed at evaluating whether removal of the ureteral stent the day before scheduled secondary intervention facilitates spontaneous ureteral stone passage and thus can spare the pre-stented patient this surgery.
methodsRetrospective analysis of a single-centre consecutive series of 216 patients after previous stenting due to a symptomatic ureteral stone from 01/2013 to 01/2018. Indwelling stents were removed under local anaesthesia. Patients were told to filter their urine overnight. Multivariate analysis was performed to assess predictive factors for spontaneous stone passage.
results34% (74/216) of patients had spontaneous stone passage while the stent was indwelling. Of the remaining 142 patients, 41% (58/142) had spontaneous stone passage within 24 h after stent removal. Only 84/216 (39%) patients needed secondary intervention. Multivariate logistic regression analysis of all 216 patients showed a significant association between spontaneous stone passage and smaller stone size (p < 0.001), distal stone location (p = 0.046) and stent dwell time (p = 0.02). Predictive factors for spontaneous stone passage after stent removal were smaller size (p < 0.001), distal location (p = 0.001), and stone movement while the stent was indwelling (p = 0.016). A treatment strategy was established that helps select patients suitable for conservative management.
conclusionsThe majority (61%) of ureteral stones passed spontaneously after pre-stenting; 34% while the stent was indwelling, 27% within 24 h after stent removal. Besides distal stone location, stone size (< 6 mm) and stone movement (≥ 5 cm) while the stent is indwelling indicate patients who are likely to pass their ureteral stone spontaneously after stent removal. The treatment strategy (decision tree) presented here helps identify those patients.
trial registrationhttps://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN12112914 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
31960109What 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.