Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34786926›Full record

SynthesisInternational braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology

Comparison of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for renal stones >2cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Pengfei Qin, Dong Zhang, Ting Huang, Li Fang, Yue Cheng

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 57 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

57 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Pengfei QinSchool of Medicine, Ningbo University, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China.
Dong ZhangSchool of Medicine, Ningbo University, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China.
Ting HuangDepartment of Urology, The Center for Uro-nephrological Diseases, Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China.
Li FangDepartment of Urology, The Center for Uro-nephrological Diseases, Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China.
Yue ChengDepartment of Urology, The Center for Uro-nephrological Diseases, Ningbo First Hospital, Ningbo, Zhejiang, China.
Ningbo First Hospital · CNNingbo University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose is to compare the efficacy and safety of mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (mini-PCNL) versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (standard-PCNL) in patients with renal stones >2cm. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases to identify relevant studies before March 8, 2021. Stone-free rate (SFR), operation time, fever rate, hemoglobin drop, blood transfusion rate, and hospitalization time were used as outcomes to compare mini-PCNL and standard-PCNL. The meta-analysis was performed using the Review Manager version 5.4.

resultsSeven randomized controlled trials were included in our meta-analysis, involving 1407 mini-PCNL cases and 1436 standard-PCNL cases. Our results reveal that, for renal stones >2cm, mini-PCNL has a similar SFR (risk ratio (RR)=1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.98 to 1.04, p=0.57) and fever rate (RR=1.22, 95% CI: 0.97-1.51, p=0.08). Standard-PCNL was associated with a significantly shorter operating time (weighted mean difference (WMD)=8.23, 95% CI: 3.44 to 13.01, p <0.01) and a longer hospitalization time (WMD=-20.05, 95% CI: -29.28 to -10.81, p <0.01) than mini-PCNL. Subgroup analysis showed hemoglobin drop and blood transfusion for 30F standard-PCNL were more common than mini-PCNL (WMD=-0.95, 95% CI: -1.40 to -0.50, p <0.01; RR=0.20, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.58, p <0.01).

conclusionIn the treatment of >2cm renal stones, mini-PCNL should be considered an effective and reliable alternative to standard-PCNL (30F). It achieves a comparable SFR to standard-PCNL, but with less blood loss, lower transfusion rate, and shorter hospitalization. However, the mini-PCNL does not show a significant advantage over the 24F standard-PCNL. On the contrary, this procedure takes a longer operation time.

trial registrationThis meta-analysis was reported consistent with the PRISMA statement and was registered on PROSPERO, with registration number 2021CRD42021234893.

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousHemoglobinsHumansOperative TimeTreatment OutcomeHemoglobinsKidney CalculiMeta-Analysis as TopicNephrolithotomy, Percutaneous

Identifiers

PMID34786926
PMCPMC9306366
OpenAlexW3213704758

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.