ReviewEuropean urology open science2023
Comparison of the Removal Efficiency and Safety of Magnetic Versus Conventional Ureteral Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Review in European urology open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Multi-centric international 10-year review of surgical magnetic mechatronics in HPB, bariatrics, OB-GYN, urology and neurosurgery: minimally invasive technology, robot design & actuator-sensor fusion.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Evaluation of postoperative safety and comfort of ureteral stent removal with extraction string in modified split-leg prone percutaneous nephrolithotomy.BMC urology · 2025Trial
- Long-term Double-J stenting is superior to short-term Single-J stenting in kidney transplantation.PloS one · 2025Article
- Cystoscope-free ureteral stent removal: a safe and effective method during the COVID-19 pandemic.American journal of clinical and experimental urology · 2024Article
- Single-use digital flexible cystoscope for double J removal versus reusable instruments: a prospective, comparative study of functionality, risk of infection, and costs.World journal of urology · 2023Observational
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: The incidence of urolithiasis is increasing year by year. Ureteral stents are a popular treatment option for this condition. Efforts to improve the material and structure of stents to increase comfort and reduce complications have led to the introduction of magnetic stents. Objective: To evaluate differences in removal efficiency and safety for magnetic and conventional stents. Evidence acquisition: This study was conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Data were extracted according to the PRISMA principles. We collected and combined data from randomized controlled trials on magnetic versus conventional stents to evaluate the efficiency of their removal and the associated effects. Data synthesis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1 and heterogeneity was evaluated using I Evidence synthesis: Seven studies were included in the review. We found that magnetic stents had a shorter removal time (mean difference [MD] -8.28 min, 95% confidence interval [CI] -15.6 to -0.95; Conclusions: Magnetic ureteral stents have the advantages of a shorter removal time, less pain during removal, and low cost in comparison to conventional stents. Patient summary: For patients undergoing treatment of urinary stones, a thin tube called a stent is often temporarily inserted in the tube between the kidney and the bladder to allow stones to pass. Magnetic stents can be removed without any need for a second surgical procedure. Our review of studies comparing two types of stents suggests that magnetic stents are superior to conventional stents in terms of efficiency and comfort during removal.
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.