Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34083725›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2021

Comparison of efficacy and safety of various management options for large upper ureteric stones a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Gopal Sharma, Tarun Pareek, Shantanu Tyagi, Pawan Kaundal, Anuj Kumar Yadav, Yashasvi Thummala, Sudheer Kumar Devana

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Gopal SharmaDepartment of Urology, Advanced Urology Center, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Level II, B Block, Sector 12, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Tarun PareekDepartment of Urology, Advanced Urology Center, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Level II, B Block, Sector 12, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Shantanu TyagiDepartment of Urology, Advanced Urology Center, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Level II, B Block, Sector 12, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Pawan KaundalDepartment of Urology, Advanced Urology Center, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Level II, B Block, Sector 12, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Anuj Kumar YadavDepartment of Urology, Advanced Urology Center, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Level II, B Block, Sector 12, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Yashasvi ThummalaDepartment of Urology, Advanced Urology Center, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Level II, B Block, Sector 12, Chandigarh, 160012, India.
Sudheer Kumar DevanaDepartment of Urology, Advanced Urology Center, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Level II, B Block, Sector 12, Chandigarh, 160012, India. drsudheer1983@gmail.com.
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To compare the safety and efficacy of various surgical modalities to manage large (> 1 cm) upper ureter stones. Systematic literature search was conducted to include all randomized studies comparing various treatment options for large (> 1 cm) upper ureteric stones. This review included 13 randomized studies with 1871 patients. Laparoscopic ureterolithotomy (LUL) and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PNL) were superior to ureteroscopy (URS) and shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) for stone-free rates and need for auxiliary treatments. LUL and PNL were equally effective for stone-free rates and the need for auxiliary treatments. According to SUCRA values for stone-free rates and the need for auxiliary treatments, LUL was the best, followed by PNL. For the duration of surgery, there was no significant difference among all the techniques on network analyses, and SWL was the best according to SUCRA values. Length of hospital stay was significantly shorter for URS than LUL and PNL from network analysis, but there was no significant difference for the rest of the comparisons. Overall complications were similar in all the groups. According to the CINeMa approach, the confidence rating ranged from "very low" to "moderate" for various comparisons. LUL followed by PNL is the most efficacious treatment modality for upper ureteric stones compared to SWL and URS in terms of stone-free rates. However, due to the poor quality of included studies, further high-quality randomized studies are needed.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingCombined Modality TherapyDisease ManagementHumansLength of StayOperative TimePostoperative ComplicationsPrognosisPublication BiasTreatment OutcomeUreteral Calculi

Identifiers

PMID34083725
PMCPMC8175352
OpenAlexW3164297406

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.