ArticleCurrent urology2022
When should we give up on expectant management for patients with proximal ureteral stones?
Article in Current urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Proximal ureteral stones (PUS) have relatively low rates of spontaneous expulsion. However, some patients do well on expectant management. Our aim was to compare risk factors for surgical intervention in patients with PUS who underwent primary intervention to those subjected to expectant management. Materials and methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of patients presented to the emergency room with symptoms of renal colic and underwent computerized tomography between August 2016 and August 2017. A total of 97 consecutive patients were identified with up to 10mm PUS. We collected patient demographics, clinical, and imaging data, and performed binary regression analysis for risk of intervention. Results: The average age was 49years (range 17-97) and average stone size was 7.1mm (range 3-10). Forty-one patients underwent immediate intervention while the remaining 56 patients were treated conservatively. Of the 56 patients treated conservatively, 26 underwent delayed intervention while 30 reported spontaneous stone expulsion. On univariate analysis of all 97 patients, statistically significant risk factors for intervention were found based on stone size, age, serum lymphocyte, platelet counts, and stone density. Of these risk factors, stone size ≥ 7mm ( Conclusion: Stone size and platelet count were found to be risk factors for surgical intervention in patients with up to 10mm PUS. These findings may assist in identifying patients who are more suitable for conservative approach.
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.