Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39100831›Full record

ArticleTranslational andrology and urology2024

Comparative efficacy of different surgical techniques for pediatric urolithiasis-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Meshari A Alzahrani, Waleed Khalid Z Alghuyaythat, Bandar Mohammed B Alsaadoon, Abdullah Othman A Aldahash, Abdulmohsen Khalid M Alghamdi, Faisal Majid S Alshammary, Muteb Saeed M Alhodairy, Abdulaziz Mfwad A Alanazi, Bader Qasi Alotaibi, Mohammad Abdullah H Silsilah and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational andrology and urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. 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

13 authors.

Meshari A AlzahraniDepartment of Urology, College of Medicine, Majmaah University, Al-Majmaah, Saudi Arabia.
Waleed Khalid Z AlghuyaythatCollege of Medicine, Majmaah University, Majmaah, Saudi Arabia.
Bandar Mohammed B AlsaadoonCollege of Medicine, Majmaah University, Majmaah, Saudi Arabia.
Abdullah Othman A AldahashCollege of Medicine, Majmaah University, Majmaah, Saudi Arabia.
Abdulmohsen Khalid M AlghamdiCollege of Medicine, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia.
Faisal Majid S AlshammaryCollege of Medicine, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia.
Muteb Saeed M AlhodairyCollege of Medicine, Majmaah University, Majmaah, Saudi Arabia.
Abdulaziz Mfwad A AlanaziCollege of Medicine, Majmaah University, Majmaah, Saudi Arabia.
Bader Qasi AlotaibiCollege of Medicine, Majmaah University, Majmaah, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammad Abdullah H SilsilahCollege of Medicine, Majmaah University, Majmaah, Saudi Arabia.
Abdullah Naser A AlotibiCollege of Medicine, Majmaah University, Majmaah, Saudi Arabia.
Faisal Khalid I AlhusiniCollege of Medicine, Majmaah University, Majmaah, Saudi Arabia.
Talal Mohammed A AlanaziCollege of Medicine, Majmaah University, Majmaah, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Prior research has assessed a range of surgical treatments for pediatric urolithiasis, emphasizing the necessity of tailor-made therapeutic approaches. These studies also show the adaptability of percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), and shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) in managing diverse stone dimensions. The goal of this research was to examine the effectiveness of these varying surgical methods in treating pediatric urolithiasis. Methods: Seven digital databases were explored to gather pertinent studies, following the guidelines established by the PRISMA protocol. The retrieved studies were subsequently scrutinized to draw comparisons between the stone-free rate (SFR) and the rate of complications associated with PCNL, RIRS, and SWL. Results: The SFR evaluation revealed no notable disparity between PCNL and RIRS [odds ratio (OR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.67-3.05, P=0.36]. However, it was observed that both PCNL and RIRS outperformed SWL in terms of effectiveness (OR 2.51, 95% CI: 1.19-5.29, P=0.02 and OR 2.42, 95% CI: 1.41-4.14, P=0.001 respectively). Regarding the complication rates, no significant differences were observed among the three surgical methods (OR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.49-1.59, P=0.05), albeit with various forms of complications being reported. Certain studies associated PCNL with an elevated rate of complications, specifically urinary tract infections (UTIs) and severe hematuria. Conclusions: Though PCNL and RIRS demonstrated higher effectiveness than SWL in achieving SFR, there was no significant disparity in the rates of complications across all three procedures. The study underscores the significance of personalized treatment plans, taking into account aspects such as the dimension and location of the stone, along with patient-specific characteristics.

Indexed as

complication ratesPediatric urolithiasispercutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL)retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS)shock wave lithotripsy (SWL)stone-free rate (SFR)

Identifiers

PMID39100831
PMCPMC11291404

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.