ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2021
Does previous unsuccessful shockwave lithotripsy influence the outcomes of ureteroscopy?-a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo determine whether previous unsuccessful shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) influence the outcomes of ureteroscopy (URS).
methodsAn exhaustive search of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were conducted to find eligible studies before October 2020. Result variables consisting stone-free rate (SFR), operation time and postoperative modified Clavien grade I-IV complications were pooled utilizing RevMan 5.3.
resultsSeven studies with 2413 individuals were included. Pooled results revealed that the salvage URS after failed SWL was similar to URS performed primarily regarding SFR [odds ratio (OR) =0.84, P=0.15] and operation time [weighted mean difference (WMD) =6.79, P=0.19]. Additionally, no statistically significant differences concerning fever (OR: 1.36; P=0.32), hematuria (OR: 0.81; P=0.75), urinary tract infection (OR: 1.57; P=0.28), renal colic (OR: 1.94; P=0.50), ureteral perforation (OR: 1.44; P=0.46), ureteral avulsion (OR: 1.21; P=0.83), stone migration (OR: 0.92; P=0.86) and sepsis (OR: 0.46; P=0.38) were observed between salvage URS and primary URS group. DISCUSSION: The success rates and complications of URS were not impacted by previous unsuccessful SWL. The salvage URS is equally effective and safe to primary URS.
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.