Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37069942›Full record

ReviewResearch and reports in urology2023

Innovations in Kidney Stone Removal.

Lazaros Tzelves, Robert Michael Geraghty, Thomas Hughes, Patrick Juliebø-Jones, Bhaskar K Somani

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Research and reports in urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Efficacy and Safety of Tip-Flexible Suctioning Ureteral Access in Renal Stone Treatment.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Lazaros TzelvesDepartment of Urology, Sismanogleio Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.ORCID 0000-0003-4619-9783
Robert Michael GeraghtyDepartment of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9128-5173
Thomas HughesDepartment of Urology, Warwick Hospital, Warwick, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7846-1470
Patrick Juliebø-JonesDepartment of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Bhaskar K SomaniDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6248-6478

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Urolithiasis is a common clinical condition, and surgical treatment is performed with different minimally invasive procedures, such as ureteroscopy, shockwave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Although the transition from open surgery to endourological procedures to treat this condition has been a paradigm shift, ongoing technological advancements have permitted further improvement of clinical outcomes with the development of modern equipment. Such innovations in kidney stone removal are new lasers, modern ureteroscopes, development of applications and training systems utilizing three-dimensional models, artificial intelligence and virtual reality, implementation of robotic systems, sheaths connected to vacuum devices and new types of lithotripters. Innovations in kidney stone removal have led to an exciting new era of endourological options for patients and clinicians alike.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencekidney calculilaserpercutaneous nephrolithotomyureteroscopy

Identifiers

PMID37069942
PMCPMC10105588

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.