ArticleUrolithiasis2021
Emergency department and hospital revisits after ambulatory surgery for kidney stones: an analysis of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2021. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- First European experience with LithoVue™ Elite: Multicentre end-user experience and feedback.Central European journal of urology · 2026Article
- Economic evaluation of surgical treatments for urolithiasis in a public hospital.International urology and nephrology · 2025Article
- Worldwide practice patterns of percutaneous nephrolithotomy.World journal of urology · 2022Article
- The High Risk Factors and Preventive Measures of Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy under the Guidance of B-Ultrasound in the Treatment of Postoperative Renal Calculi.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our objective was to identify the rate of revisit to either emergency department (ED) or inpatient (IP) following surgical stone removal in the ambulatory setting, and to identify factors predictive of such revisits. To this end, the AHRQ HCUP ambulatory, IP, and ED databases for NY and FL from 2010 to 2014 were linked. Cases were selected by primary CPT for shock-wave lithotripsy (SWL), ureteroscopy (URS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) with accompanying ICD-9 for nephrolithiasis. Cystoscopy (CYS) was selected as a comparison group. The risk of revisit was explored using multivariate models. The overall unplanned revisit rate following stone removal was 6.4% (4.2% ED and 2.2% IP). The unadjusted revisit rates for SWL, URS, and PNL are 5.9%, 6.8%, and 9.0%, respectively. The adjusted odds of revisit following SWL, URS, and PNL are 1.93, 2.25, and 2.70 times higher, respectively, than cystoscopy. The majority of revisits occurred within the first two weeks of the index procedure, and the most common reasons for revisit were due to pain or infection. Younger age, female sex, lower income, Medicare or Medicaid insurance, a higher number of chronic medical conditions, and hospital-owned surgery centers were all associated with an increased odds of any revisit. The most important conclusions were that ambulatory stone removal has a low rate of post-operative revisits to either the ED or IP, there is a higher risk of revisit following stone removal as compared to urological procedures that involve only the lower urinary tract, and demographic factors appear to have a moderate influence on the odds of revisit.
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.