Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38017464›Full record

ArticleBMC urology2023

A comparative study of flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy for upper urinary tract stones in patients with prior urosepsis following emergency drainage via retrograde ureteral stent or percutaneous nephrostomy.

Sucai Liao, Xiang Xu, Yuan Yuan, Keiyui Tang, Genggeng Wei, Zhengquan Lu, Lin Xiong

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC urology, 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 3 countries.

Sucai Liao *Department of Urology, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, 1 Haiyuan First Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518053, China.
Xiang Xu *Department of Urology, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, 1 Haiyuan First Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518053, China.
Yuan YuanDepartment of Urology, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, 1 Haiyuan First Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518053, China.
Keiyui TangDepartment of General Surgery, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust, Derriford Hospital, Plymouth, UK.
Genggeng WeiDepartment of Urology, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, 1 Haiyuan First Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518053, China.
Zhengquan LuDepartment of Urology, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, 1 Haiyuan First Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518053, China.
Lin XiongDepartment of Urology, The University of Hong Kong-Shenzhen Hospital, 1 Haiyuan First Road, Futian District, Shenzhen, Guangdong, 518053, China. xionglin1978@126.com.
University of Hong Kong - Shenzhen Hospital · CNUniversity Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with urosepsis associated with upper urinary tract stones require further stone management after emergency drainage.

objectiveTo evaluate the safety and efficacy of elective flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (F-URSL) for upper urinary tract stones in patients with prior urosepsis who have undergone emergency drainage using retrograde ureteral stent(RUS) or percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN).

methodBetween January 2017 and December 2021, clinical data were collected for 102 patients who underwent elective F-URSL following emergency drainage for urosepsis caused by upper ureteral or renal stones. The patients were categorized into two groups based on the drainage method used: the RUS group and the PCN group. The collected data included patient demographics, stone parameters, infection recovery after emergency drainage, and clinical outcomes post F-URSL. Subsequently, the data underwent statistical analysis.

resultsA total of 102 patients were included in the statistical analysis, with 58 (56.86%) in the RUS group and 44 (43.14%) in the PCN group. Among the patients, 84 (82.35%) were female and 18 (17.65%) were male, with an average age of 59.36 years. Positive urine cultures were observed in 71 (69.61%) patients. Successful drainage was achieved in all patients in both groups, and there were no significant differences in the time required for normalization of white blood cell count (WBC) and body temperature following drainage. Additionally, all patients underwent F-URSL successfully, and no statistically significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of operative time, stone-free rates, postoperative fever, and postoperative hospital stay.

conclusionBoth RUS and PCN have been established as effective approaches for managing urosepsis caused by upper urinary tract stones. Furthermore, the impact of these two drainage methods on the subsequent management of stones through elective F-URSL has shown consistent outcomes.

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiLithotripsyNephrostomy, PercutaneousUreteral CalculiUrinary CalculiUrinary Tract InfectionsDrainageFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedStentsUreteroscopyFlexible ureteroscopic lithotripsyPercutaneous nephrostomyRetrograde ureteral stentUrosepsis

Identifiers

PMID38017464
PMCPMC10685477
OpenAlexW4389086134

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.