ArticleCentral European journal of urology2024
Comparing silodosin and mirabegron as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral calculus: a prospective, randomised study.
Article in Central European journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The effects of locally administered aminophylline in patients undergoing ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a systematic review with exploratory meta-analysis.Frontiers in urology · 2026Pooled it
- The efficacy and safety of mirabegron and α-adrenergic receptor antagonist in the treatment of distal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Mirabegron for intramural ureteral stones with vesical irritability: a prospective study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: In this study we aimed to compare the efficacy of mirabegron and silodosin as medical expulsive therapy (MET) for distal ureteric calculus ≤10 mm. Material and methods: A total of 114 patients who met the inclusion criteria were prospectively randomised into 2 groups, 58 patients in the silodosin group and 56 patients in the mirabegron group. The drugs were given for a maximum of 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the stone expulsion rate, and secondary endpoints were stone expulsion time and number of pain episodes. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of mean age, gender, mean stone size, side, or hydronephrosis. Both groups exhibited similar rates of stone expulsion and expulsion time. Regarding pain management, the frequency of renal colic episodes was significantly lower with mirabegron compared to silodosin (2.3 ±0.2 vs 1.9 ±0.2, P <0.0001). Six patients were excluded from the study due to adverse drug reactions: 4 (6.15%) in the silodosin group (retrograde ejaculation, hypotension) and 2 (3.27%) in the mirabegron group (hypertension). Conclusions: In among patients with distal ureteric stones measuring 5-10 mm, mirabegron did not demonstrate superiority in stone expulsion rate or expulsion time compared to silodosin. However, mirabegron significantly reduced the frequency of renal colic episodes. Therefore, mirabegron may be considered a preferable option for medical expulsive therapy for distal ureter stones over silodosin.
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.