ReviewArab journal of urology2021
Drug-delivering devices in the urinary tract: A systematic review.
Review in Arab journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Local Anesthetic-Eluting Foley Catheter (FreeFoley) on Urethral Pain and Discomfort After HoLEP: A Multicenter Prospective Controlled Study.European urology open science · 2026Article
- Development of an Ex Vivo Platform to Model Urethral Healing.Methods and protocols · 2025Article
- A Multicenter, Randomized, Single-Blind Trial Evaluating a Multi-Porous Urethral Catheter with Continuous Local Ropivacaine Infusion for the Reduction of Postoperative Catheter-Related Bladder Discomfort.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The Utility of Intraluminal Therapies in Upper Tract Urothelial Carcinoma: A Narrative Review.Cancers · 2024Review
- Stenting of Malignant Urinary Tract Obstructions in Humans and Companion Animals.Veterinary sciences · 2021Review
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 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objective: To systematically review the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) and drug-coated balloons (DCB) in urology. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. PubMed, Scopus, Web of science and Cochrane Library online databases were searched in February 2019. Experimental and clinical studies, which included the placement of a DES or dilatation with DCB for investigating their potential use in the urinary tract for the management of ureteric or urethral pathologies, were included. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the current use of DES and DCB in urology.
resultsA total of 29 articles were included in the systematic review. A total of 10 studies tested DES or DCB containing anti-proliferative agents (paclitaxel, zotarolimus, sirolimus, halofugione). Antibiotic agent-containing DES were tested in nine studies (triclosan, quinolones, teicoplanin, nitrofurantoin, silver sulfadiazine). A total of eight studies investigated the release of anti-inflammatory agents by DES (ketorolac, indomethacin, EW-7197). Another group studied heparin-eluting stents.
conclusionDespite the inconclusive outcomes of the three randomised controlled trials, drug-coated/eluting devices constitute a promising field in urology for the prevention of complications associated with conventional stents including pain and encrustation. Pre-clinical
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.