ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022
Silicone vs. Polyurethane Stent: The Final Countdown.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- From biofilms to fibrosis: recent advances in research on the pathological microenvironment linked to ureteral stents and their surface functionalization.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Article
- Most Important Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Applications of Silicones.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Synergistic Activity of Vancomycin and Gentamicin AgainstMicroorganisms · 2025Article
- Risk factors of early infectious complications after ureterorenoscopy for stone disease: a prospective study.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Variability in Design and Materials of Vaginal Stent or Moulds for Vaginal Agenesis - A Systematic Review.Journal of human reproductive sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ureteric stents are conventionally used in daily urological practice. There is ongoing debate on the superiority of different stent materials, particularly in terms of patient tolerance. We conducted a literature review to compare silicone stents and stents made of other materials from a patient tolerability perspective. We conclude that silicone stents are better tolerated but further research is required.
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.