ArticleThe Journal of international medical research2021
Cost-effectiveness of using stone cone, balloon dilator, stone basket, and entrapment device in ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy for ureteric stones.
Article in The Journal of international medical research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The assistive role of an internal fluid circulatory device in ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a randomized, controlled and prospective study.International urology and nephrology · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the costs and stone-free rates of ureteroscopic laser lithotripsy (ULL) performed with and without auxiliary equipment and to compare first-time ULL with total treatment.
methodsOne hundred patients who underwent first-time ULL without the use of auxiliary equipment because its unavailability comprised the no-device ULL (ndULL) group. Additionally, 100 patients who underwent first-time ULL with the use of auxiliary equipment when necessary comprised the device ULL (dULL) group.
resultsIn the ndULL and dULL groups, the stone-free rates after first-time ULL were 72% and 94% and the mean cost was US $1037 ± 15.10 and US $1452 ± 19.80 per case, respectively, with a statistically significant difference. The stone-free rates at the end of treatment were 98% and 99%, respectively, without a statistically significant difference. When secondary treatment costs were added to the first ULL costs after failed treatment, the mean total cost was US $1625 ± 12.60 in the ndULL group and US $1566 ± 11.01 in the dULL group without a statistically significant difference.
conclusionsThe stone-free rates and costs after first-time ULL were significantly different between the groups. However, after total treatment, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups.
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.