Trial reportUrolithiasis2021
What is the optimal frequency in shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric renal stones? A prospective randomized study.
Trial report 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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Complication rate after pediatric shock wave lithotripsy according to Clavien-Dindo grading system: results from a systematic review and meta-analysis of the existing literature.World journal of urology · 2023Pooled it
- Which frequency is better for pediatric shock wave lithotripsy? Low intermediate or high: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in surgery · 2023Review
- Extremely slow, half-number shockwave lithotripsy for ureteral stones.Urolithiasis · 2022Article
- Paediatric kidney stone surgery: state-of-the-art review.Therapeutic advances in urologyReview
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the study is to compare the effects of varying frequency rates (60, 90, and 120 SWs/min) on the stone free rate and complication rates of pediatric SWL. 75 children with renal stones were divided into 3 groups depending on the SW frequency applied. Group 1. low (60 SWs/min), Group 2. intermediate (90 SWs/min) and Group 3. high (120 SWs/min) frequency. Patient demographics (age, gender, BMI), stone (location, size, laterality), and SWL (total number of sessions, shock waves, anesthesia time) related parameters were documented. Postoperative success, complication rates, and the need for additional interventions were comparatively evaluated. There was no significant difference regarding the patient demographics, stone characteristics, SWL parameters, postoperative complication rates, need for additional interventions as well as efficacy quotient between all (p > 0.05). The stone free rates were significantly lower in cases with high frequency, whereas there was no statistically significant difference between the intermediate and low frequency groups (p > 0.05). Although not statistically significant; low frequency application may be more advantageous than intermediate as lower number of high energy shock waves required which may cause less tissue damage. On the other hand, despite lack of a statistically significant difference, relatively longer anesthesia time may constitute a disadvantage for lower frequency. We believe that considering the growing nature of the child kidney application of low frequency (60 SWs/min) will be advantageous. However, we believe that further studies with larger series of cases are needed to make a clear-cut differentiation between low and intermediate SW applications.
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.