ArticleBJUI compass2024
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: Prematurely falling out of favour? A 7 year retrospective study from an Australian high-volume centre.
Article in BJUI compass, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study is to audit 7 years of data with a 3 year follow up from a high-volume stone centre performing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) to evaluate efficacy in stone clearance compared to existing knowledge and understand reasons for this performance. Methods: Patients who received ESWL treatment for renal or proximal ureteric stones at a single centre between January 2012 and January 2019 (to allow minimum 3 year follow up) were retrieved. A retrospective analysis was performed cross referencing for stone size, location, treatment and need for further procedures. Ethical approval was granted through Metro North HHS HREC, Queensland, Australia. Results: A total of 1930 patients met inclusion criteria. Fifty-seven percent ( Conclusion: ESWL remains a legitimate option for the treatment of small and medium sized renal calculi. ESWL stone clearance rates at our centre are higher than published elsewhere and serve as proof to its efficacy. X-ray imaging on the day of the procedure, heavy consultant input and frequent intra-operative imaging are cited as key reasons for success. Further research is warranted to elucidate factors affecting stone clearance rate and to enable more standardised outcomes. Further investment may be required into ESWL provisions in most Australian states and especially in Queensland to enable its continued use in contrast to developing endourological techniques.
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.