ArticleUrology2024
A Systematic Scoping Review of Comparative Effectiveness Studies in Kidney Stone Disease.
Article in Urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Two decades of kidney stone interventional trials on clinicaltrials.gov: a registry-based landscape analysis of design, endpoints, and dissemination.Urolithiasis · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitudes and practices towards urinary calculi among patients: a cross-sectional study in Jiangsu Province, China.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Gaps in kidney stone disease management: From clinical theory to patient reality.Urolithiasis · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo review the status of comparative effectiveness studies for kidney stone disease with focus on study outcome, type, population, time trends, and patient-centered approaches.
methodsA systematic scoping review was performed for articles published between January 1, 2005, and March 30, 2021, using keywords relevant to kidney stone disease. Studies published in English that compared two or more alternative methods for prevention, diagnosis, treatment, monitoring, or care delivery were included. Two reviewers independently reviewed abstracts and an arbitrator resolved discrepancies. Nine reviewers abstracted information from full-length studies. Descriptive statistics were summarized, and linear regression was performed to evaluate temporal trends of study characteristics.
resultsWe reviewed 1773 abstracts and 707 full-length manuscripts focused on surgical intervention (440); medical expulsive therapy (MET) (152); analgesic control (80); and homeopathic, diagnostics, and/or prophylaxis (84). Randomized controlled trials were common across all outcome categories, including surgery (41.6%), MET (60.2%), analgesic control (81.3%), homeopathic (41.2%), diagnostic (47.6%), and prophylaxis (49.1%). Patient-reported outcomes were utilized in 71.7% and 95% of MET and analgesic control studies, respectively, but in the minority of all other study themes. Over time, meta-analyses and multicenter studies increased [P < .001].
conclusionSurgical and MET themes dominate published comparative literature in kidney stone disease. There is substantial variation in use of patient-reported outcomes across surgical themes. Multicentered studies and those generating higher level evidence have increased over time but opportunities exist to improve collaborative, high-quality, and patient-centered research in kidney stone disease.
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.