Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35474887›Full record

ArticleBJUI compass2021

Survey on ureTEric draiNage post uncomplicaTed ureteroscopy (STENT).

Nikita R Bhatt, Kenneth MacKenzie, Taimur T Shah, Kevin Gallagher, Keiran Clement, William A Cambridge, Meghana Kulkarni, Graeme MacLennan, Rustom P Manecksha, Oliver J Wiseman and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BJUI compass, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

13 authors at 13 institutions in 2 countries.

Nikita R BhattDepartment of Urology Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital Norwich UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8554-4335
Kenneth MacKenzieDepartment of Urology Sunderland Royal Infirmary Sunderland UK.
Taimur T ShahDivision of Surgery and Cancer Imperial College London London UK.
Kevin GallagherDepartment of Urology Western General Hospital Edinburgh UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5485-5336
Keiran ClementDepartment of Urology Royal Alexandra Hospital, Urology Paisley UK.
William A CambridgeUniversity of Edinburgh Edinburgh UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7560-7905
Meghana KulkarniDepartment of Urology Guy's and St Thomas' and King's College London London UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4222-7647
Graeme MacLennanUniversity of Aberdeen The Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials Aberdeen UK.
Rustom P ManeckshaDepartment of Urology Tallaght University Hospital Dublin Ireland.
Oliver J WisemanDepartment of Urology Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust Cambridge UK.
Samuel McclintonDepartment of Urology Aberdeen Royal Infirmary Aberdeen UK.
Daron SmithDepartment of Urology University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust London UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8314-4795
Veeru KasivisvanathanDivision of Surgery and Interventional Science University College London.
Aberdeen Royal Infirmary · GBCambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBImperial College London · GBKing's College London · GBNorfolk and Norwich University Hospital · GBRoyal Alexandra Hospital · GBSunderland Eye Infirmary · GBTallaght University Hospital · IEUniversity College London · GBUniversity College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBWestern General Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To assess the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to assess whether avoiding ureteric drainage is superior to performing ureteric drainage after Uncomplicated Ureteroscopy and/or Flexible Ureterorenoscopy (URS/FURS) treatment of a urinary tract stone in improving patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and 30-day unplanned readmission rates. A secondary objective was to understand current practice of urologists regarding ureteric drainage after uncomplicated URS/FURS (UU). Material and methods: We undertook an online survey of urologists, circulated amongst members of international urological societies and through social media platforms. Uncomplicated URS/FURS was defined as completion of URS/FURS treatment for a urinary tract stone, with the absence of: ureteral trauma, residual fragments requiring further lithotripsy procedures, significant bleeding, perforation, prior urinary tract infection or pregnancy. The ureteric drainage options considered included an indwelling stent, stent on a string or a ureteric catheter. The primary outcome was to determine the proportion of urologists willing to take part in a RCT, randomising patients after UU to a "no ureteric drainage" arm or ureteric drainage arm. Secondary outcomes included determining in their current practice, the proportion of clinicians performing routine ureteric drainage after UU, the reasons for performing ureteric drainage following UU and their preferred optimal duration for ureteric drainage if it is used. The study was reported according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). Results: Total of 468 respondents from 45 countries took part in the survey, of whom 303 completed the entire survey (65%). The majority agreed that they would be willing to randomise patients (244/303, 81%) in the proposed RCT. Perceived lack of equipoise to randomise was the most common reason for not being willing to participate (59/303, 19%).92% (308/335) reported that they use ureteric drainage after UU. This was most often due to wanting to prevent possible complications from post-operative ureteric oedema (77%) or to aid passage of small fragments (43%). Complexity of the case (i.e. impacted stone 90%) and length of the procedure (46%) were the most important intraoperative factors influencing the decision to use ureteric drainage post procedure. If required, the median stated ideal duration of ureteric drainage was 5 days (IQR: 3-7 days) after UU. If having UU personally, 30% would want no stent postoperatively and over half would prefer a stent on a string. Conclusion: We have highlighted wide variation in practice regarding ureteric drainage after UU. Our results support the feasibility of an RCT evaluating if no ureteric drainage is superior to ureteric drainage in improving PROMs and 30-day unplanned readmission rates following UU.

Indexed as

randomized controlled trialureteral stentureteric stentureteric stonesurolithiasis

Identifiers

PMID35474887
PMCPMC8988693
OpenAlexW3089209707

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.