ReviewArab journal of urology2024
Supine versus prone pediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Arab journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- An updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of supine versus prone position for pediatric PCNL.International urology and nephrology · 2025Pooled it
- Flank-free modified supine vs. prone position for pediatric nephrolithotripsy: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC urology · 2024Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the treatment of choice for pediatric nephrolithiasis more than 20 mm. Prone position was the preferred position for decades. Recently, supine position has gained more interest. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PCNL in supine versus prone position in pediatric population. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was performed till 28 February 2024. The study included comparative studies comparing both positions in children that were written in English. A total of three randomized studies and three retrospective studies were included with a total number of 290 patients. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used for quality assessment, while Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for non-randomized controlled trials. The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager software. Numerical data were analyzed using standardized mean difference (SMD), while the risk ratio was used for analysis of categorical data. Fixed or random effects models were used according to heterogeneity. There were statistically insignificant differences between both groups for stone-free rate (RR 1.08, 95% CI [0.98-1.18],
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.