Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38546854›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of urology2024

Follow-up of urolithiasis patients after treatment: an algorithm from the EAU Urolithiasis Panel.

Riccardo Lombardo, Lazaros Tzelves, Robert Geraghty, Niall F Davis, Andreas Neisius, Ales Petřík, Giovanni Gambaro, Christian Türk, Bhaskar Somani, Kay Thomas and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

11 authors.

Riccardo LombardoSant'Andrea Hospital, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy.
Lazaros TzelvesNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Chairman of the EAU Urolithiasis Guidelines, Department of Urology, Sismanogleio Hospital, Athens, Greece.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4619-9783
Robert GeraghtyDepartment of Urology, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, UK.
Niall F DavisDepartment of Urology, Connolly Hospital, Blanchardstown, Dublin 15, Ireland.
Andreas NeisiusDepartment of Urology, Hospital of the Brothers of Mercy Trier, Medical Campus University Mainz, Trier, Germany.
Ales PetříkDepartment of Urology, Region Hospital, Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic.
Giovanni GambaroDivision of Nephrology and Dialysis, Department of Medicine, University of Verona, Verona, Italy.
Christian TürkDepartment of Urology, Hospital of the Sisters of Charity, Vienna, Austria.
Bhaskar SomaniDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Kay ThomasDepartment of Urology, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK.
Andreas SkolarikosNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Chairman of the EAU Urolithiasis Guidelines, Department of Urology, Sismanogleio Hospital, Athens, Greece. andskol@yahoo.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop a follow-up algorithm for urinary stone patients after definitive treatment. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe panel performed a systematic review on follow-up of urinary stone patients after treatment (PROSPERO: CRD42020205739). Given the lack of comparative studies we critically evaluated the literature and reached a consensus on the follow-up scheme.

resultsA total of 76 studies were included in the analysis, including 17 RCTs. In the stone-free general population group, 71-100% of patients are stone-free at 12 months while 29-94% remain stone-free at 36 months. We propose counselling these patients on imaging versus discharge after the first year. The stone-free rate in high-risk patients not receiving targeted medical therapy is < 40% at 36 months, a fact that supports imaging, metabolic, and treatment monitoring follow-up once a year. Patients with residual fragments ≤ 4 mm have a spontaneous expulsion rate of 18-47% and a growth rate of 10-41% at 12 months, supporting annual imaging follow-up. Patients with residual fragments > 4 mm should be considered for surgical re-intervention based on the low spontaneous expulsion rate (13% at 1 year) and high risk of recurrence. Plain film KUB and/or kidney ultrasonography based on clinicians' preference and stone characteristics is the preferred imaging follow-up. Computed tomography should be considered if patient is symptomatic or intervention is planned.

conclusionsBased on evidence from the systematic review we propose, for the first time, a follow-up algorithm for patients after surgical stone treatment balancing the risks of stone recurrence against the burden of radiation from imaging studies.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsUrolithiasisAftercareFollow-Up StudiesHumansAlgorithmFollow-upImagingMetabolicUrinary stone treatment

Identifiers

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.