ReviewCureus2023
Antireflux Ureteral Stents Prevent Stent-Related Symptoms: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does an anti-reflux ureteral stent offer real benefits for children after endoscopic surgery for upper urinary tract stones? A single-center randomized controlled trial.World journal of urology · 2026Trial
- Choosing the optimal ureteral stent design, size, and material in different situations: a review from the European association of urology endourology.World journal of urology · 2026Review
- Present and future of ureteral stent technology: a review by the EAU endourology section.World journal of urology · 2026Review
- Comparison of external drainage ureteral tube versus double-J catheter placement on subjective comfort and adverse events after percutaneous nephrolithotomy.American journal of translational research · 2026Article
- Effect of retention time on renal function and kidney size in patients with indwelling DJ tubes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ureteral stents are widely used in urological care, but they are often associated with adverse stent-related symptoms (SRS), such as painful urination, elevated urinary frequency, and abdominal discomfort. Antireflux ureteral stents have been developed to reduce stent-related pain and reflux by minimizing vesicoureteral reflux (VUR). This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was undertaken to assess the efficacy of antireflux ureteral stents in mitigating SRS compared to conventional urethral stents. Our study included a total of 269 cases from three RCTs. The meta-analysis showed that antireflux ureteral stents were significantly more effective than standard stents in reducing SRS, including stent-related pain (odds ratio (OR): 4.80, 95% CI: 2.77, 8.31, p <0.00001), severe stent-related pain (OR: 8.35, 95% CI: 2.12, 32.89, p=0.002), flank pain while urinating (OR: 5.98, 95% CI: 3.35, 10.68, p <0.00001), and severe flank pain while urinating (OR: 15.79, 95% CI: 2.91, 85.57, p=0.001). There was no significant difference in the rates of postoperative creatinine abnormality or postoperative hydronephrosis between the two groups. Therefore, antireflux ureteral stents are more effective than standard stents in reducing SRS. This suggests that antireflux ureteral stents should be considered for patients undergoing ureteral stenting.
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.