Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35083079›Full record

ReviewCentral European journal of urology2021

Endourological management of encrusted ureteral stents: an up-to-date guide and treatment algorithm on behalf of the European Association of Urology Young Academic Urology Urolithiasis Group.

Patrick Juliebø-Jones, Amelia Pietropaolo, Mathias Sørstrand Æsøy, Øyvind Ulvik, Christian Beisland, Ewa Bres-Niewada, Bhaskar K Somani

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Central European journal of urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Thulium versus holmium: Which is safer for the removal of entombed stents?Indian journal of urology : IJU : journal of the Urological Society of India
    Article
  11. 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

7 authors.

Patrick Juliebø-JonesDepartment of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Amelia PietropaoloDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Mathias Sørstrand ÆsøyDepartment of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Øyvind UlvikDepartment of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Christian BeislandDepartment of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Ewa Bres-NiewadaDepartment of Urology, Roefler Memorial Hospital, Pruszków, Poland.
Bhaskar K SomaniDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Encrustation of ureteral stents can represent a complex challenge. Patients can require multiple intervention types as well as several operative sessions. Our aim was to establish a practical guide for managing such cases as well as an accompanying treatment algorithm. Nearly all cases can now be successfully managed with minimally invasive methods such as ureteroscopy and/or percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Use of a validated tool for grading burden of encrustation is recommended. Careful patient counselling as well as operative planning are of paramount importance. Identifying high risk patient groups such as pregnancy and implementing prevention strategies are also crucial.

Indexed as

encrustationindwelling timerisk factorsstentsureteroscopy

Identifiers

PMID35083079
PMCPMC8771125

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.