ArticleJournal of healthcare engineering2022
Analysis of the Mechanism of Ureproofing Technology and Postlaparoscopy on Patients with Urology and Infection.
Article in Journal of healthcare engineering, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retracted: Analysis of the Mechanism of Ureproofing Technology and Postlaparoscopy on Patients with Urology and Infection.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-09-27Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Concerns/Issues about Referencing/Attributions · Concerns/Issues about Peer Review · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Investigation by Third Party · Paper Mill · Computer-Aided Content or Computer-Generated Content · Unreliable Results and/or Conclusions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To analyze the effect of ureteroscopy and retrolaparoscopy on urinary calculi and infection. Method: A total of 64 patients with urinary calculi and infection who received treatment in our hospital from June 2018 to January 2018 were selected. According to the different treatment methods, they were divided into two groups: a control group and a study group. The study group was treated with laparoscopic ureteroscopy, and the control group was treated with ureteroscopy. The surgical results, complications, renal function, stress response, and inflammatory reaction were compared between the two groups. Results: Compared with the control group, the study group stone clearance rate was higher, the surgical time was shorter ( Conclusion: In the clinical treatment of urinary stones, ureteroscopy technology and the laparoscopic technique have played an important role. But the laparoscopic technique is shorter, the stone clearance is higher, and the patient's renal function can be improved, and the patient is postoperative. The stress reaction should be small. Therefore, in the clinical treatment of urinary stones and infection, laparoscopic technical treatment is worth promoting.
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.