ReviewSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2022
Quality of life with tandem ureteral stents compared to percutaneous nephrostomy for malignant ureteral obstruction.
Review in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of the efficacy and safety of metallic ureteral stent versus polymer ureteral stent for patients with malignant ureteral obstruction: a meta-analysis of comparative trials.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- When double-J stents become a risk: bilateral distal ureteric urothelial carcinoma following ureteric instrumentation: a case report.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Patterns of adjuvant intracavitary instillation and recurrence after endoscopic management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Review
- Unveiling the Challenges in Tandem Ureteral Stent Management for Malignant Ureteral Obstruction: Failure Rate, Risk Factors, and Durability of Their Replacement.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMalignant ureteral obstruction (MUO) is treated with kidney decompression by a percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) or internal ureteral stents. The objective of this study was to compare quality of life (QoL) with a PCN compared to tandem ureteral stents (TUS) in cases of MUO.
methodsWe reviewed the medical records of patients with MUO who were treated by PCN/TUS in our institution between June 2019 and May 2020. Patients were asked to fill out a QoL questionnaire, a tube-symptoms questionnaire, report a general health scale, and asked for a drain preference if they had experience with both drains. Scores of both groups were compared and predictors of all QoL and tube-symptoms measures were searched using multivariate analysis.
resultsSeventy-four patients with a PCN and 30 with TUS were included in the study. No statistically significant difference was found in all QoL and tube-symptoms measurements between the two drains. Type of drain was not found to be a predictor of QoL or tube-related symptoms. Eighty-four percent of patients (11/13) who have experience with both types of drains preferred TUS.
conclusionTUS and PCN for relief of MUO have a negative and similar effect on various areas of QoL and urinary symptoms. Most patients who had experience with both types of drains preferred TUS over PCN. In this patient population with a grim prognosis, this negative effect must be communicated to patients, and calculated against the potential benefits of drainage.
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.