ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2022
The impact of stenting prior to oral chemolysis of upper urinary tract uric acid stones.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Staghorn uric acid stones: oral chemolysis outcomes and development of a nomogram for treatment success.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
- Kidney Stone Prevention.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2023Review
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the impact of ureteral stenting on the success rate of oral chemolysis in the management of suspected uric acid upper urinary tract (UUT) stones.
methodsRetrospective matched-pair analysis of 172 patients treated with oral chemolysis from 01/2010 to 12/2019. Patients with low density (upon non-contrast enhanced computer tomography [NCCT]), radiolucent (on plain radiography) urinary stones, a low urine pH (< 6) and/or history of uric acid urolithiasis were included. Potassium citrate and/or sodium bicarbonate were used for alkalization (target urine pH: 6.5-7.2). Patient 1:1 matching was performed for the presence of indwelling ureteral stent, stone diameter, stone density, and stone localization. Stone-free status was evaluated after 12 weeks using NCCT. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess factors affecting the outcome.
resultsMean patient age was 61 years (73% males). Mean stone size was 12 mm. Overall success rates after 12-weeks of chemolysis for stones at any localization in the UUT and ureteral stones were 60.5 and 77.3%, respectively. Smaller stone size (OR = 0.94; CI 0.888-0.992; p = 0.026) and lower pre-treatment urine pH (OR = 0.131; CI 0.023-0.737; p = 0.021) significantly increased the success of oral chemolysis. Ureteral stenting did not have any impact on the efficacy of oral chemolysis.
conclusionOral chemolysis is an effective treatment modality for patients with UUT stones suspected of uric acid content irrespective of ureteral stenting. Smaller stone diameter and lower urine pH at diagnosis increase its efficacy.
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.