ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022
Moses and Moses 2.0 for Laser Lithotripsy: Expectations vs. Reality.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of pulse modulation technology on operating room time and blood loss in HoLEP: real-world data from an academic center.Lasers in medical science · 2026Article
- New Technologies in Endourology and Laser Lithotripsy: The Need for Evidence in Comprehensive Clinical Settings.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Dusting efficacy between the regular setting of holmium laser (Ho:YAG) versus Vapor Tunnel pulse modality for non-complex kidney stones.Lasers in medical science · 2023Article
- Ureteroscopy and lasertripsy with pop dusting using high power holmium laser for large urinary stones > 15 mm: 6.5-year prospective outcomes from a high-volume stone center.World journal of urology · 2023Article
- Ureteral wall thickness and distal ureteral density in patients with residual fragments after Ho:YAG laser semi-rigid ureterolithotripsy.Lasers in medical science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Moses technology was born with the aim of controlling the Moses effect present in every single Ho:YAG laser lithotripsy. The capacity to divide the energy pulse into two sub-pulses gained popularity due to the fact that most of the energy would be delivered in the second pulse. However, is this pulse modulation technique really better for endocorporeal laser lithoripsy? A review of the literature was performed and all relevant clinical trials of Moses 1.0 and 2.0, as well as the lab studies of Moses 2.0 carried out up to June 2022 were selected. The search came back with 11 clinical experiences (10 full-text clinical trials and one peer-reviewed abstract) with Moses 1.0 and Moses 2.0, and three laboratory studies (peer-reviewed abstracts) with Moses 2.0 only. The clinical experiences confirmed that the MT (1.0) has a shorter lasing time but lower laser efficacy, because it consumes more J/mm
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.