SynthesisBMC nephrology2020
Aspiration-sclerotherapy versus laparoscopic de-roofing in the treatment of renal cysts: which is better?
Synthesis in BMC nephrology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Observational
- A clinician's guide to the diagnosis and management of kidney cysts.Internal medicine journal · 2025Review
- Ultrasound-guided percutaneous intracystic deroofing is effective in the treatment of simple renal cysts.American journal of translational research · 2023Article
- Sustained volume decreases in simple renal cysts after sclerotherapy using NBCA with or without hydrodissection.Journal of interventional medicine · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the clinical efficiency between aspiration-sclerotherapy (AS) and laparoscopic de-roofing (LD) in the management of renal cysts through meta-analysis of comparative studies.
methodA comprehensive literature search was performed by PubMed, MEDLINE, Ovid and Web of Science for relevant studies published up to January 2020. The statistical analyses were conducted with Review Manager 5.3.0 and Stata 15.1. The sensitivity analysis was also carried out to confirm the reliability of this Meta-analysis.
resultsOur searches of literature generated 6 studies (1547 patients incorporated) comparing AS with LD in the impacts of renal cyst therapy. Of these, 6 studies contained 1106 and 441 patients who were treated with AS and LD, respectively. The outcome of this meta-analysis indicated that LD group was superior in symptomatic successful rate [Odds Ratio (OR): 0.28; 95%Confidence Interval (CI): 0.09 to 0.86; P = 0.03), radiological successful rate (OR: 0.06; 95%CI: 0.02 to 0.15; P < 0.01) and recurrence rate (OR: 6.08; 95%CI: 2.81 to 13.15; p < 0.01). Nevertheless, AS group had shorter treatment time [Mean Difference (MD):-51.10; 95% CI:-73.01 to - 29.20; p < 0.01]. No statistically significant difference was showed in the rate of complications (OR: 3.19; 95% CI: 0.39 to 25.88; P = 0.28).
conclusionsIn our meta-analysis, LD had higher symptomatic successful rate, radiological successful rate as well as lower recurrence rate than AS, while the treatment time was longer.
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.