Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37691986›Full record

ArticleCurrent urology2023

The "ins and outs" of the magnetic ureteral stent: A novel innovation in Endourology.

Vishal Damodaran, Brandon Els, Efthimia Daras, Tracy Kataka, Sadiyabanu Safiq Gulamali, S'babalwe Ntakana, Marlon Perera, Ahmed Adam

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Current urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Vishal DamodaranThe Unit for Undergraduate Medical Education (UUME), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Brandon ElsThe Unit for Undergraduate Medical Education (UUME), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Efthimia DarasThe Unit for Undergraduate Medical Education (UUME), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Tracy KatakaThe Unit for Undergraduate Medical Education (UUME), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Sadiyabanu Safiq GulamaliThe Unit for Undergraduate Medical Education (UUME), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
S'babalwe NtakanaThe Unit for Undergraduate Medical Education (UUME), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Marlon PereraDepartment of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Ahmed AdamDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
University of the Witwatersrand · ZAUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Ureteral stents play a major role in maintaining ureteral patency. Various innovations are advocated in the design and subsequent removal of traditional double-J ureteral stents, such as the magnetic-end double-J ureteral stent (MEDJUS). This stent facilitates outpatient removal using a magnetic stent removal device. This systematic review was conducted to analyze the published role, efficacy, and outcomes of MEDJUS. Materials and methods: After PROSPERO registration (CRD42021235739), an electronic database search (PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Web of Science) was performed on December 31, 2020. The search terms were as follows: " Results: Nine studies with a total of 685 patients were included in the systematic review. The total number of MEDJUS procedures used was 498 (73%) compared to the 187 (27%) traditional double-J stent method. Magnetic-end double-J ureteral stent extraction failure was reported in 8 cases (1.61%). Compared with traditional stents, MEDJUS showed a cost benefit in 5/5 studies. Better pain scores (during stent in situ) and (at stent removal) were observed in 2/3 and 3/4 of the studies, respectively. Conclusions: Magnetic-end double-J ureteral stent may serve as a viable alternative to traditional double-J stents, offering cost and pain benefits with similar rates of complications. Magnetic-end double-J ureteral stent also offers relative ease of extraction and a reduced need for inpatient removal. This ambulatory stent removal technique has forged its use in modern urological practice.

Indexed as

Double-JInnovationMagnetic stentMagnetic stentStent removal

Identifiers

PMID37691986
PMCPMC10489510
OpenAlexW4288722732

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.