ArticleUrolithiasis2024
Optimal duration of medical expulsive therapy for lower ureteral stones: a critical evaluation.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of alpha-blockers in medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials between 2010 and 2025.Arab journal of urology · 2026Review
- Article
- Advanced Glycation End-Product-Modified Heat Shock Protein 90 May Be Associated with Urinary Stones.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the optimal duration of Medical Expulsive Therapy (MET) application for distal ureteric stones on a time period based manner. 89 patients with 5-10 mm distal ureter stones received tamsulosin (0.4 mg) for MET and diclofenac sodium (75 mg) for analgesia. Patients were evaluated once a week for 4 weeks. Radiologic stone passage was evaluated by kidney ureter bladder (KUB) and ultasonography where non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) was also performed if needed. While 23 cases (28.4%) were SF after first week, 23 were SF (28.4%) after 2 weeks, 9 cases (11.1%) after 3 and lastly 7 cases (8.6%) became SF after four weeks. Nineteen (23.5%) cases were not SF after 4 weeks. A positive relationship was found between the time period elapsed for stone passage and ureteral wall thickness (UWT) along with the degree of hydronephrosis. In addition, mean number of renal colics and emergency department (ED) visits were found to be higher in patients passing stones in the 4th week along with the ones who could not despite MET. SFR for distal ureteric stones sizing 5-10 mm was higher within the first 3 weeks under MET application. Thus, waiting for a longer period of time may result in increased analgesic and unnecessary MET treatment with increased risk of emergency department visits and additional costs as well. We believe that other options could be considered in such cases who are not SF at the end of the first 3 weeks.
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.