Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38023749›Full record

ArticleMaedica2023

Semirigid

C Mares, P Geavlete, C Ene, V Iordache, B Geavlete

Open access · bronzeAbstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Maedica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 58% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

C Mares"Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
P Geavlete"Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
C Ene"Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
V Iordache"Saint John" Emergency Clinical Hospital, Department of Urology, Bucharest, Romania.
B Geavlete"Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.
Carol Davila University of Medicine and Pharmacy · ROClinical Emergency Hospital Bucharest · RO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ureteral stones are a major clinical problem in urology that require effective and safe therapeutic options. Semirigid and flexible ureteroscopy ar two well-established procedures for treating these stones. The present review provides an outline of the advantages and disadvantages of these approaches. Semirigid ureteroscopy, which uses a rigid straight instrument, provides excellent stone visualisation and successful fragmentation. It is especially useful for proximal and bigger stones, frequently resulting in high stone-free rates and reduced procedure times. Nonetheless, its stiffness can make it difficult to navigate the delicate ureteral anatomy and increase the risk of mucosal injury. On the other hand, flexible ureteroscopy employs a more adjustable flexible scope, allowing access to complicated ureteral configurations while reducing the risk of ureteral trauma. It excels at treating distal and difficult stones but has a lower efficacy with larger stones and often requires longer procedure times. The choice between semirigid and flexible ureteroscopy is determined by patient-specific factors such as stone characteristics or anatomical considerations and the surgeon's skill. A customised approach that uses the capabilities of both treatments as needed can improve stone management outcomes while reducing potential problems. The continued advancement of technology and methodological modifications is predicted to improve the field of ureteroscopic stone management.

Identifiers

PMID38023749
PMCPMC10674128
OpenAlexW4388997388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.