Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36794032›Full record

ArticleCentral European journal of urology2022

Do outcomes of ureteroscopic stone treatment vary with stone composition? A prospective analysis.

Maximilian J Johnston, Mriganka Sinha, Amelia Pietropaolo, Bhaskar K Somani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Central European journal of urology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

4 authors.

Maximilian J JohnstonDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Mriganka SinhaDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Amelia PietropaoloDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Bhaskar K SomaniDepartment of Urology, University Hospital of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Urinary tract calculi are commonly treated with ureteroscopy and laser stone fragmentation (URSL). The composition of calculi depends on underlying patient factors. Stones associated with metabolic or infectious conditions are sometimes thought to be more difficult to treat. This analysis explores whether the composition of calculi impacts on stone-free and complication rates. Material and methods: A prospectively maintained database of patients undergoing URSL between 2012-2021 was used to explore records for patients with uric acid (Group A), infection (Group B) and calcium oxalate monohydrate (Group C) calculi. Patients who had undergone URSL to treat ureteric or renal calculi were included. Patient demographics, stone parameters and operative details were collected, with the principal outcomes being stone-free rate (SFR) and associated complications. Results: A total of 352 patients were included (58 Group A, 71 Group B and 223 Group C patients) and had their data analysed. SFR was >90% for all three groups and a single Clavien-Dindo grade III complication was noted. No significant differences were found between the groups for complications, SFR and day case rates. Conclusions: This cohort of patients demonstrated that outcomes were similar for three different types of urinary tract calculi, which form for differing reasons. URSL appears to be an effective, safe treatment for all stone types with comparable results.

Indexed as

laserstone compositionureteroscopyurinary tract calculi

Identifiers

PMID36794032
PMCPMC9903168

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.