Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34128107›Full record

SynthesisCurrent urology reports2021

Outcomes and Cost Evaluation Related to a Single-Use, Disposable Ureteric Stent Removal System: a Systematic Review of the Literature.

Thomas Hughes, Amelia Pietropaolo, Patrick Jones, Marco Oderda, Paolo Gontero, Bhaskar K Somani

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Current urology reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 33% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Thomas HughesUrology Department, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK. t.hughes@doctors.org.uk.
Amelia PietropaoloUrology Department, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
Patrick JonesUrology Department, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
Marco OderdaDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino - Molinette Hospital, University of Torino, Torino, Italy.
Paolo GonteroDivision of Urology, Department of Surgical Sciences, Città della Salute e della Scienza di Torino - Molinette Hospital, University of Torino, Torino, Italy.
Bhaskar K SomaniUrology Department, University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust, Tremona Road, Southampton, SO16 6YD, UK.
University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewTo present the latest evidence related to the outcomes and cost of single-use, disposable ureteric stent removal system (Isiris). RECENT

findingsOur review suggests that compared to a reusable flexible cystoscope (re-FC), a disposable flexible cystoscope (d-FC) with built-in grasper (Isiris) significantly reduced procedural time and provided a cost benefit when the latter was used in a ward or outpatient clinic-based setting. The use of d-FC also allowed endoscopy slots to be used for other urgent diagnostic procedures. Disposable FCs are effective and safe for ureteric stent removal. They offer greater flexibility and, in most cases, have been demonstrated to be cost-effective compared to re-FCs. They are at their most useful in remote, low-volume centres, in less well-developed countries and in centres where large demand is placed on endoscopy resources.

Indexed as

Costs and Cost AnalysisCost-Benefit AnalysisCystoscopyDevice RemovalHumansStentsTreatment OutcomeUreterCystoscopyKidney calculiPercutaneous nephrolithotomyStentUreteroscopy

Identifiers

PMID34128107
OpenAlexW3168261925

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.