ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
Cost-effectiveness of quality improvement intervention to reduce time between CT-detection and ureteroscopic laser fragmentation in acute symptomatic ureteric stones management.
Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Timing of definitive stone management in acute obstructive urolithiasis: does early intervention improve outcomes? A meta-analysis.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Costs of resolving a ureteral or kidney stone episode worldwide: a systematic review.International urology and nephrology · 2026Pooled it
- Feasibility and Safety of Primary Ureteroscopy with Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscope HU30M (6.3 Fr, HugeMed): An Initial Experience.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo prospectively assess clinical and cost effectiveness of emergency ureteroscopic laser fragmentation of urinary stones causing symptoms or obstruction. PATIENTS AND
methods100 consecutive patients with an average (median) age 55.6 (57.5) years and average (median) stone size of 8.2 mm (± 7 mm) between October 2018 and December 2021 who underwent emergency ureteroscopy and laser fragmentation formed the study cohort as part of a clinical service quality improvement. Primary outcome was single procedure stone-free rate and cost-effectiveness. The secondary outcomes were complications, re-admission and re-intervention. A decision analysis model was constructed to compare the cost-effectiveness of emergency ureteroscopy with laser fragmentation (EUL) and emergency temporary stenting followed by delayed ureteroscopy with laser fragmentation (DUL) using our results and success rates for modelling.
resultsSingle procedure stone-free rates (SFR) for EUL and DUL were 85%. The re-intervention rate, re-admission and complication rates of the study cohort (EUL) were 9%, 18%, and 4%, respectively, compared to 15%, 20%, and 5%, respectively for the control cohort (DUL). The decision analysis modelling demonstrated that the EUL treatment option was more cost-efficient, averting £2868 (€3260) per patient for the UK health sector. Total cost of delayed intervention was £7783 (€8847) for DUL in contrast to £4915 (€5580) for EUL.
conclusionsImplementation of quality improvement project based on a reduction in CT detection-to-laser fragmentation time interval in acute ureteric obstruction or symptoms caused by stones had similar clinical effectiveness compared to delayed ureteroscopic management, but more cost-effective.
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.