Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37780913›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in surgery2023

Controversies in ureteroscopy: lasers, scopes, ureteral access sheaths, practice patterns and beyond.

Patrick Juliebø-Jones, Etienne Xavier Keller, Vincent De Coninck, Sabine Uguzova, Lazaros Tzelves, Mathias Sørstrand Æsøy, Christian Beisland, Bhaskar K Somani, Øyvind Ulvik

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 24% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 6 countries.

Patrick Juliebø-JonesDepartment of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Etienne Xavier KellerEAU Young Academic urology Urolithiasis Group, Arnhem, Netherlands.
Vincent De ConinckEAU Young Academic urology Urolithiasis Group, Arnhem, Netherlands.
Sabine UguzovaDepartment of Urology, Royal Preston Hospital, Preston, United Kingdom.
Lazaros TzelvesEAU Young Academic urology Urolithiasis Group, Arnhem, Netherlands.
Mathias Sørstrand ÆsøyDepartment of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Christian BeislandDepartment of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
Bhaskar K SomaniDepartment of Urology, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, United Kingdom.
Øyvind UlvikDepartment of Urology, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway.
University of Bergen · NOAZ Klina · BEEuropean Association of Urology · NLHaukeland University Hospital · NORoyal Preston Hospital · GBSismanoglio General Hospital · GRSouthampton General Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ureteroscopy has become an increasingly popular surgical intervention for conditions such as urinary stone disease. As new technologies and techniques become available, debate regarding their proper use has risen. This includes the role of single use ureteroscopes, optimal laser for stone lithotripsy, basketing versus dusting, the impact of ureteral access sheath, the need for safety guidewire, fluoroscopy free URS, imaging and follow up practices are all areas which have generated a lot of debate. This review serves to evaluate each of these issues and provide a balanced conclusion to guide the clinician in their practice.

Indexed as

fluroscopylaserlithotripsyureteral access sheathureteroscopy

Identifiers

PMID37780913
PMCPMC10533910
OpenAlexW4386699129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.