Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36556996›Full record

SynthesisMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)2022

Silodosin versus Tamsulosin for Medical Expulsive Therapy of Ureteral Stones: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Hae Do Jung, Kang Su Cho, Dae Young Jun, Jae Yong Jeong, Young Joon Moon, Doo Yong Chung, Dong Hyuk Kang, Seok Cho, Joo Yong Lee

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Hae Do JungDepartment of Urology, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Goyang 10380, Republic of Korea.
Kang Su ChoDepartment of Urology, Prostate Cancer Center, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 06273, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-3500-8833
Dae Young JunDepartment of Urology, Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-7928-5659
Jae Yong JeongDepartment of Urology, Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, Republic of Korea.
Young Joon MoonDepartment of Urology, Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-4711-772X
Doo Yong ChungDepartment of Urology, Inha University College of Medicine, Incheon 22212, Republic of Korea.
Dong Hyuk KangDepartment of Urology, Inha University College of Medicine, Incheon 22212, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-0814-7336
Seok ChoDepartment of Urology, Inje University Ilsan Paik Hospital, Inje University College of Medicine, Goyang 10380, Republic of Korea.
Joo Yong LeeDepartment of Urology, Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-3470-1767
Yonsei University · KRInha University · KRInje University Ilsan Paik Hospital · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was performed to compare the therapeutic effects and safety profiles of silodosin and tamsulosin for medical expulsive therapy (MET) of ureteral stones. Materials and Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science to identify articles published before July 2022 that described randomized controlled trials comparing silodosin and tamsulosin for MET of ureteral stones. Endpoints were stone expulsion rate, stone expulsion time, and total complication rate. Results: In total, 14 studies were included in our analysis. The size of ureteral stones was <1 cm. Compared with tamsulosin, silodosin resulted in a significantly higher stone expulsion rate (p < 0.01, odds ratio (OR) = 2.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.91 to 3.06, I2 = 0%) and significantly shorter stone expulsion time (p < 0.01, mean difference = −3.04, 95% CI = −4.46 to −1.63, I2 = 89%). The total complication rate did not significantly differ between silodosin and tamsulosin (p = 0.33, OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.87 to 1.52, I2 = 7%). Conclusions: Compared with tamsulosin, silodosin resulted in significantly better expulsion of ureteral stones <1 cm. The total complication rate did not significantly differ between silodosin and tamsulosin. Thus, silodosin may be superior to tamsulosin for MET of ureter stones <1 cm.

Indexed as

Ureteral CalculiAdrenergic alpha-1 Receptor AntagonistsHumansIndolesRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTamsulosinTreatment OutcomeAdrenergic alpha-1 Receptor AntagonistsIndolessilodosinTamsulosinadrenergic alpha-1 receptor antagonistsmeta-analysissystematic reviewureteral calculi

Identifiers

PMID36556996
PMCPMC9788172
OpenAlexW4311720761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.