ArticleUrolithiasis2024
Is traditional stone clinic the optimal use of NHS resources?
Article in Urolithiasis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is no clear guidance on the efficacy of stone follow-up. NICE have been unable to make recommendations with current published evidence. The aim of this study was to understand the patient journey resulting in surgical intervention, and whether traditional stone follow-up is effective. A retrospective review of patients undergoing ureteroscopy (URS) or percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) over a 3 year period identified 471 patients who underwent these procedures to treat stone disease. Records were interrogated for the following: symptoms, mechanism of booking, reason for intervention, stone size, stone location, risk factors and previous follow-up. Of 471 patients who underwent intervention, 168 were booked from stone clinic follow-up (36%). Of these, 96% were symptomatic and 4% were asymptomatic. When risk factors were removed, this figure was reduced to 1%. Sepsis rate for emergency admissions differs between those followed up (13%) versus new presentations (19)%. There was no statistically significant difference in the outpatient imaging frequency between patients booked from an emergency admission (80% having imaging every 6 months) and those from the clinic (82%). Our Hospital provides on average 650 stone clinic appointments a year with a cost of £93,000. Given the low rate of intervention in patients with asymptomatic renal stones, a symptomatic, direct-access emergency stone clinic could be a better model of care and use of NHS resources. Urgent research is required in this area to further assess if this is the case.
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.