Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34910235›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of urology2022

Outcomes and costs of ureteroscopy, extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of urolithiasis: an analysis based on health insurance claims data in Germany.

Claudia Schulz, Benedikt Becker, Christopher Netsch, Thomas R W Herrmann, Andreas J Gross, Jens Westphal, Thomas Knoll, Hans-Helmut König

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Claudia SchulzDepartment of Health Economics and Health Services Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. c.schulz@uke.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1053-2126
Benedikt BeckerDepartment of Urology, Asklepios Hospital Barmbek, Hamburg, Germany.
Christopher NetschDepartment of Urology, Asklepios Hospital Barmbek, Hamburg, Germany.
Thomas R W HerrmannDepartment of Urology, Spital Thurgau AG, Kantonsspital Frauenfeld, Frauenfeld, Switzerland.
Andreas J GrossDepartment of Urology, Asklepios Hospital Barmbek, Hamburg, Germany.
Jens WestphalDepartment of Urology and Pediatric Urology, Hospital Maria Hilf, Alexianer Krefeld GmbH, Krefeld, Germany.
Thomas KnollDepartment of Urology, Klinikum Sindelfingen-Boeblingen, Sindelfingen, Germany.
Hans-Helmut KönigDepartment of Health Economics and Health Services Research, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeComparisons of ureteroscopy (URS), extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for urolithiasis considering long-term health and economic outcomes based on claims data are rare. Our aim was to analyze URS, SWL, and PCNL regarding complications within 30 days, re-intervention, healthcare costs, and sick leave days within 12 months, and to investigate inpatient and outpatient SWL treatment as the latter was introduced in Germany in 2011.

methodsThis retrospective cohort study based on German health insurance claims data included 164,203 urolithiasis cases in 2008-2016. We investigated the number of complications within 30 days, as well as time to re-intervention, number of sick leave days and hospital and ambulatory health care costs within a 12-month follow-up period. We applied negative binomial, Cox proportional hazard, gamma and two-part models and adjusted for patient variables.

resultsCompared to URS cases, SWL and PCNL had fewer 30-day complications, time to re-intervention within 12 months was decreased for SWL and PCNL, SWL and PCNL were correlated with a higher number of sick leave days, and SWL and particularly PCNL were associated with higher costs. SWL outpatients had fewer complications, re-interventions and lower costs than inpatients. This study was limited by the available information in claims data.

conclusionURS cases showed benefits in terms of fewer re-interventions, fewer sick leave days, and lower healthcare costs. Only regarding complications, SWL was superior. This emphasizes URS as the most frequent treatment choice. Furthermore, SWL outpatients showed less costs, fewer complications, and re-interventions than inpatients.

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiLithotripsyNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousUrolithiasisHumansInsurance, HealthRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUreteroscopyAdministrative claimsHealthcareHealth care costsPostoperative complicationsSick leaveUrolithiasis

Identifiers

PMID34910235
PMCPMC8948106

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.