ReviewUrology annals
Stent diameter and stent-related symptoms, does size matter? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Urology annals. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measurements for urolithiasis: a COSMIN-based systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Pooled it
- Pre-Stenting: Is Smaller Better? A Multicentric Evaluation of 4.8 F and 6 F JJ Stents in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of loop-tail versus double J ureteral stents in diabetic patients: effects on stent-related symptoms and encrustations.BMC urology · 2026Article
- Impact of ureteric stent diameter on stent-related symptoms and early outcomes after kidney transplantation: A randomised controlled trial.BJUI compass · 2026Article
- Comparison of the effects of commonly used double-J stents on stone-free rates and ureteral stent-related symptoms after lithotripsy for upper urinary tract stones.Central European journal of urology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The ureteral insertion of a silicone tube was first performed in 1967. A validated ureteral stent symptom questionnaire (USSQ) is used for an objective assessment of patient-reported stent-related symptoms. As the impact of stent diameter on the incidence of stent-related symptoms is unclear, we aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing USSQ reported outcomes when using a 6 Fr diameter ureteric stent, versus smaller diameter stents (4.7-5 Fr) when inserted for ureteric stones. All randomized control trials and comparative studies of 6 Fr versus 4.7-5 Fr ureteric stents were reviewed. The USSQ outcomes were considered as the primary outcome measures while stent migration was considered as a secondary outcome measure. A total of 61 articles were identified of which four studies met the eligibility criteria. There was a statistically significant association between the use of wider (6 Fr) diameter stents and the incidence of urinary symptoms as measured by the urinary index score. Larger stent diameters were associated with a statistically significant increase in the pain index score. There was no statistically significant difference in the scores between the compared stent diameters with regard to work performance score, general health index score, additional problems index score, and stent migration. There were insufficient reported outcomes to perform a meta-analysis of sexual matters index score. Our meta-analysis shows that using smaller diameter ureteric stents is associated with reduced urinary symptoms and patient-reported pain. Other USSQ parameter outcomes are statistically similar in the 6 Fr ureteric stent cohort versus the 4.7-5 Fr ureteric stent cohort. Our meta-analysis was limited due to the limited number of studies and gross heterogeneity of reporting parameters in various studies. We hope a large-scale homogeneous randomized control trial will further shed more insight into the stent symptoms response to stent diameter.
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.