Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39345311›Full record

ArticleCentral European journal of urology2024

Comparing silodosin and mirabegron as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral calculus: a prospective, randomised study.

Mohammad Shazib Faridi, Sanika Deshpande

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. 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

2 authors.

Mohammad Shazib FaridiDepartment of Urology, Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar Medical College and Hospital, New Delhi, India.
Sanika DeshpandeDepartment of Surgery, Division of Urology, Hamdard Institute of Medical Science and Research, New Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

efficacymedical expulsive therapymirabegronsilodosinureteral calculi

Identifiers

PMID39345311
PMCPMC11428354

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.