Trial reportWorld journal of urology2023
Which is better, fluoroscopic-guided or ultrasonic-guided shock wave lithotripsy for pediatric renal stones? Prospective randomized comparative study.
Trial report in World journal of urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The comparison of totally ultrasound-guided versus fluoroscopy-guided shockwave lithotripsy in renal stone treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.F1000Research · 2025Pooled it
- Imaging during pediatric stone management and follow up.World journal of urology · 2025Review
- Comparison of ultrasound-guided and fluoroscopy-guided shockwave lithotripsy in infants under 24 months.International urology and nephrology · 2025Article
- Contemporary metabolic evaluation, medical and minimally invasive management of stones in children.Urolithiasis · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the efficacy and clinical outcomes of two different stone localization modalities (fluoroscopic or ultrasonic) in SWL treatment of pediatric renal stones. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis study was conducted in the period between January 2021 and June 2022 and included 100 children aged 2-16 years who presented with radio-opaque renal pelvic stones < 20 mm. The children were divided in two groups: group I, US-guided (50 patients), and group II, FS-guided SWL (50 patients). SWL was applied under general anesthesia. The follow-up of the patients included a visit every two weeks up to three months.
resultsEven though group II's stone-free rate after one month of follow-up was higher than group I's (90% vs. 84%), no statistically significant difference was found between the groups (p = 0.749). While the success rate was higher in group II than in group I (92% vs. 86%), no statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups (p = 0.338). The complication rate was 28% (14 patients) and 12% (6 patients) in Groups I and II, respectively. However, no significant difference was found between the two groups (p = 0.132).
conclusionsSWL is a non-invasive and safe method for treating pediatric renal stones. We recommend the use of the ultrasonic focusing modality in SWL of the pediatric age group, which has similar success rates, avoiding radiation and low complication rate instead of the fluoroscopic focusing modality, which uses ionizing radiation during SWL.
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.