ReviewUrolithiasis2022
Should we support prophylactic intervention for asymptomatic kidney stones? A retrospective cohort study with long-term follow-up.
Review in Urolithiasis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the natural history of incidentally recognized clinically silent nephrolithiasis in healthy adults: an updated systematic review with meta-analysis.Urolithiasis · 2025Pooled it
- Is traditional stone clinic the optimal use of NHS resources?Urolithiasis · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term outcomes of patients undergoing prophylactic intervention or active surveillance for asymptomatic kidney stones and identify factors influencing the outcomes. In this retrospective cohort study, we reviewed the medical records of patients with asymptomatic kidney stones in two institutes between November 2014 and November 2019. Standardized questions were asked via phone calls to supplement the outcomes. Pain, hydronephrosis, stone growth, serious infection, gross hematuria, and spontaneous passage were defined as stone-related events. Future intervention was also recorded to evaluate management. A total of 101 patients with 120 kidney units were enrolled in this study. The median follow-up time was 63 months. The patients were classified into the control group (79 cases) or exposure group (41 cases) according to whether they underwent prophylactic intervention before any stone-related events. Generally, the rates of stone-related events and future intervention were significantly different between the two groups (57.0 vs. 12.2%, p < 0.001; and 31.6 vs. 4.9%, p = 0.002, respectively). After applying stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted, Cox regression suggested that patients who underwent prophylactic intervention were less likely to experience stone-related events and future intervention (HR = 0.175, and HR = 0.028, respectively). In conclusion, patients who underwent prophylactic intervention had a lower risk of stone-related events and future intervention, although they had some slight complications.
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.