Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38812627›Full record

ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2024

Urologists' opinion on treating asymptomatic stones: Would we treat ourselves as we treat our patients? Survey from European Association of Urology, Young Academic Urologists, Endourology and Urolithiasis working party.

Tarık Emre Şener, Thomas Tailly, Yılören Tanidir, Etienne Xavier Keller, Amelia Pietropaolo, Juan Gomez Rivas, Zeeshan Hameed, Vincent DE Coninck, Tzevat Tefik, Kemal Sarica and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Efficacy and Safety of Boldine Combined withMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024
    Article
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

15 authors.

Tarık Emre ŞenerDepartment of Urology, Marmara University, School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0085-7680
Thomas TaillyEAU, Young Academic Urologists (YAU), Endourology & Urolithiasis Working Group, Arnhem, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5801-5801
Yılören TanidirDepartment of Urology, Marmara University, School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1607-5819
Etienne Xavier KellerEAU, Young Academic Urologists (YAU), Endourology & Urolithiasis Working Group, Arnhem, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1667-7609
Amelia PietropaoloEAU, Young Academic Urologists (YAU), Endourology & Urolithiasis Working Group, Arnhem, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7631-3108
Juan Gomez RivasDepartment of Urology, La Paz University Hospital, Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0556-3035
Zeeshan HameedEAU, Young Academic Urologists (YAU), Endourology & Urolithiasis Working Group, Arnhem, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2904-351X
Vincent DE ConinckEAU, Young Academic Urologists (YAU), Endourology & Urolithiasis Working Group, Arnhem, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4983-5055
Tzevat TefikDepartment of Urology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul University, İstanbul, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1398-8332
Kemal SaricaDepartment of Urology, Medicana Bahcelievler Hospital, Biruni University, İstanbul, Turkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2473-1313
Ali Serdar GözenDepartment of Urology, SLK-Kliniken Heilbronn, University of Heidelberg, Heilbronn, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9975-443X
Andreas SkolarikosEAU, Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT), Arnhem, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8338-6628
Olivier TraxerDepartment of Urology, Tenon University Hospital, Sorbonne University, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2459-3803
Christian SeitzEAU, European Section of Urolithiasis (EULIS), Arnhem, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8424-9492
Bhaskar SomaniEAU, Section of Uro-Technology (ESUT), Arnhem, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6248-6478

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background/aim: Management of asymptomatic kidney stones is an ongoing debate with follow-up and treatment guidelines based on low-level evidence. Our aim was to evaluate current management of asymptomatic urinary stones. Materials and methods: A 70-question survey was designed in collaboration with European Association of Urology, Young Academic Urologists, Section of Uro-Technology and Section of Urolithiasis groups and distributed. Responders filled out hypothetical scenarios from 2 perspectives, either as treating physicians, or as patients themselves. Results: A total of 212 (40.01%) responses were obtained. Median responder age was 39 years. 75% of responders were interested in "urolithiasis". 82.5% had never experienced a renal colic, 89.6% had never undergone urolithiasis treatment.Overall, as the kidney stone scenarios got more complicated, the invasiveness of the treatment preference increased. As "the physician", responders preferred the conservative option in all situations more than they would choose as "the patient". For ureteral stones, conservative approach was most preferred for small stones and ureteroscopy became more preferred as the stone size increased.For smaller kidney stones, the most preferred follow-up schedule was 4-6 monthly, whereas for larger and complicated stones it was 0-3 monthly from both perspectives respectively. For all ureteral stone scenarios, 0-4 weekly follow-up was mostly preferred.Interestingly, having had a renal colic was an independent predictor of an interventional approach, whereas having had an intervention was an independent predictor of a conservative approach. Conclusion: Current treatment and follow-up patterns of asymptomatic urinary stones are in agreement with international guidelines on symptomatic stones.In most of the urolithiasis situations urologists chose a conservative approach for their patients compared to what they would prefer for themselves. Conversely, urologists, in the scenarios as "the patient", would like to have a more frequent follow-up schedule for their stones compared to how they would follow-up their patients.

Indexed as

UrologistsAdultAsymptomatic DiseasesAttitude of Health PersonnelEuropeFemaleHumansKidney CalculiMaleMiddle AgedPractice Patterns, Physicians'Surveys and QuestionnairesUreteroscopyUrolithiasisUrologydecision makingkidneysurveyureterUrolithiasis

Identifiers

PMID38812627
PMCPMC11031145

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.