Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36795174›Full record

ArticleUrolithiasis2023

Prospective comparison of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy versus flexible ureterorenoscopy in patients with non-lower pole kidney stones under the COVID-19 pandemic.

Song Bai, Yunhong Zhan, Chunyu Pan, Gang Liu, Jia Li, Liping Shan

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Urolithiasis, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on kidney stone management in a single-payer system.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2025
    Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Song BaiDepartment of Urology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No. 36, San Hao Street, Shenyang, 110004, Liaoning, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6073-145X
Yunhong ZhanDepartment of Urology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No. 36, San Hao Street, Shenyang, 110004, Liaoning, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4693-3434
Chunyu PanDepartment of Urology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No. 36, San Hao Street, Shenyang, 110004, Liaoning, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2605-8337
Gang LiuDepartment of Urology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No. 36, San Hao Street, Shenyang, 110004, Liaoning, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9158-7502
Jia LiDepartment of Urology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No. 36, San Hao Street, Shenyang, 110004, Liaoning, China. lijiacmu@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5965-3829
Liping ShanDepartment of Urology, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, No. 36, San Hao Street, Shenyang, 110004, Liaoning, China. shanliping81@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4835-6140

Funding

Natural Science Foundation of Liaoning Education Department QN2019013Natural Science Foundation of Liaoning Science and Technology Department 2020-BS-093
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Both shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and flexible ureterorenoscopy (F-URS) are recommended as the first choice for non-lower pole kidney stones. Therefore, we conducted a prospective study to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and cost of SWL versus F-URS in patients with solitary non-lower pole kidney stones ≤ 20 mm under the COVID-19 pandemic. This prospective study was conducted in a tertiary hospital from June 2020 to April 2022. Patients who underwent lithotripsy (SWL or F-URS) for non-lower pole kidney stones were enrolled in this study. The stone-free rate (SFR), retreatment rate, complications, and cost were recorded. Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed. A total of 699 patients were finally included, of which 81.3% (568) were treated with SWL and 18.7% (131) underwent F-URS. After PSM, SWL showed equivalent SFR (87.9% vs. 91.1%, P = 0.323), retreatment rate (8.6% vs. 4.8%, P = 0.169), and adjunctive procedure (2.6% vs. 4.9%, P = 0.385) compared with F-URS. Complications were scarce and also comparable between SWL and F-URS (6.0% vs 7.7%, P > 0.05), while the incidence of ureteral perforation was higher in the F-URS group compared with the SWL group (1.5% vs 0%, P = 0.008). The hospital stay was significantly shorter (1 day vs 2 days, P < 0.001), and the cost was considerably less (1200 vs 30,083, P < 0.001) in the SWL group compared with the F-URS group. This prospective cohort demonstrated that SWL had equivalent efficacy with more safety and cost benefits than F-URS in treating patients with solitary non-lower pole kidney stones ≤ 20 mm. During the COVID-19 pandemic, SWL may have benefits in preserving hospital resources and limiting opportunity for virus transmission, compared to URS. These findings may guide clinical practice.

Indexed as

COVID-19Kidney CalculiLithotripsySolitary KidneyHumansPandemicsProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUreteroscopyCOVID-19Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsyFlexible ureterorenoscopyKidney stonePropensity score-matched

Identifiers

PMID36795174
PMCPMC9933802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.