Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33574911›Full record

ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2021

A systematic review and meta-analysis of minimally invasive vs. standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the surgical management of renal stones.

Binbin Jiao, Zhenkai Luo, Tao Huang, Guan Zhang, Jiang Yu

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Tranexamic acid for percutaneous nephrolithotomy.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Safety and efficacy of ambulatory tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of 10-25 mm renal calculi A retrospective study.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Binbin JiaoDepartment of Urology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing 100029, P.R. China.
Zhenkai LuoDepartment of Urology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing 100029, P.R. China.
Tao HuangDepartment of Urology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing 100029, P.R. China.
Guan ZhangDepartment of Urology, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing 100029, P.R. China.
Jiang YuDepartment of Urology, Shandong Provincial Hospital Affiliated to Shandong First Medical University, Jinan, Shandong 250021, P.R. China.
China-Japan Friendship Hospital · CNShandong Provincial Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present study aimed to assess current evidence on the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive vs. standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) in the management of renal stones. A systematic search of electronic databases, which included PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library up to May 2019 was performed. Using Review Manager statistical software (version 5.3), primary outcomes, including stone-free rates (SFRs), were evaluated. Meanwhile, analysis was also performed to compare secondary outcomes, such as peri- and postoperative complications and operative data. Fourteen studies involving 1,611 patients with renal stones were analyzed based on the inclusion criteria. On the basis of the present analysis, mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (MPCNL) was proven to have non-inferior clinical efficacy with respect to the SFR compared with PCNL [odds ratio (OR)=1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.84-1.44; P=0.48]. In addition, the meta-analysis showed that MPCNL had a significantly lower hemoglobin decrease [mean difference (MD)=-0.68; 95% CI, -1.05 to -0.31; P=0.0003] and fewer blood transfusions (OR=0.36; 95% CI, 0.18-0.71; P=0.003) compared with PCNL. Moreover, the MPCNL group had a shorter inpatient stay (MD=-0.81; 95% CI, -1.55 to -0.08; P=0.03) compared with the PCNL group. However, the overall evidence was insufficient to suggest a statistically significant difference in the adverse event profile for MPCNL compared with PCNL. The present meta-analysis indicates that MPCNL is an effective method for treating renal stones. Compared with PCNL, MPCNL not only has similarly high SFRs but is also associated with less blood loss, fewer blood transfusions, more favorable recovery time and shorter inpatient stays. However, the findings of the present study should be further confirmed by well-designed prospective randomized controlled trials with a larger patient series.

Indexed as

minimally invasive percutaneous nephrolithotomymini percutaneous nephrolithotomypercutaneous nephrolithotomyrenal stones

Identifiers

PMID33574911
PMCPMC7818531
OpenAlexW3119875295

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.