ReviewWorld journal of urology2021
Consensus of multiple national guidelines: agreed strategies for initial stone management during COVID-19.
Review in World journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Risk factors for urosepsis following ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2025Review
- Evaluation of fear, willingness to seek care, and healthcare delivery preferences for patients with nephrolithiasis during the COVID-19 pandemic.Translational andrology and urology · 2024Article
- [Lessons learned after the disruption caused by COVID-19 in the management of urolithiasis: An example of adaptation in a high-volume center].Actas urologicas espanolas · 2023Article
- The impact the COVID-19 pandemic on urology literature: a bibliometric analysis.Central European journal of urology · 2022Review
- After COVID-19: planning postpandemic care of patients with kidney stones.Nature reviews. Urology · 2021Article
- COVID19: the response of the urologist.World journal of 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo review the existing available information regarding urolithiasis management and the impact of COVID-19 on this, and propose recommendations for management of emergency urolithiasis presentations in the COVID-19 era.
methodsReview of published guidelines produced by Urological Governing Bodies, followed by the literature review regarding urolithiasis management during the COVID-19 pandemic.
resultsConsistent recommendations across guidelines and literature were that urolithiasis with concurrent sepsis or renal failure remains a urological emergency warranting urgent intervention within the pandemic environment. Ureteric stenting and percutaneous nephrostomy are considered equivalent for decompression in this setting, with both ideally to be performed under local anaesthesia where possible to spare ventilators and reduce aerosol-generating procedures. Greater utilization of medical expulsive therapy and dissolution chemolysis may occur during the pandemic, and longer indwelling stent times may be accepted while definite stone clearance is deferred.
conclusionsUrolithiasis will continue to be a source of emergency presentations requiring urgent intervention during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is possible to limit these interventions to decompression of the collecting system in the setting of concurrent obstruction or infection, performed under local anaesthesia to limit use of resources and minimise aerosol-generating procedures, with deferral of definitive management.
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.