Trial reportWorld journal of urology2021
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for renal insufficiency.
Trial report 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Comparison of mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the treatment of renal calculi with renal insufficiency.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the effect and outcome of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) versus extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in patients with renal insufficiency. PATIENTS AND
methodsA prospective randomized clinical study of 104 renal insufficiency patients with renal stones (serum creatinine 2-4 mg/dl and eGFR < 60 ml/min/1.73 m
resultsBetween Group A of 50 patients and Group B of 54 cases, demographic data showed no statistically significant differences. The stone-free rate was 84% in Group A versus 26.6% in Group B after the first SWL session. After completion of all SWL sessions, the rate was 88.9% for Group B. Comparing pre and postoperative results of Group A, there is significant improvement of serum creatinine concentrations by 9.1% (p = 0.001), significant improvement of creatinine clearance (p = 0.000) and eGFR (p = 0.003). Although regarding Group B preoperatively and 3 months after SWL there is significant improvement by 8.7% (p = 0.0001), which is less than that of Group A, there is also, improvement of eGFR by 6.7% (p = 0.001), which is less than the eGFR improvement in Group A (12.3%). But there is no statistically significant difference is noted for creatinine clearance in Group B (p = 0.09).
conclusionThe outcomes for PNL and SWL in patients with renal insufficiency and renal stones are encouraging as minimally invasive procedures with no negative effects on kidney function.
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.