SynthesisBJU international2025
Ureteric stenting outside of the operation theatre: challenges and opportunities.
Synthesis in BJU international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ureteral Orifice Detection in Ureteroscopic Images Based on Large-Kernel Convolutional Neural Networks and Attention-Based Feature Fusion.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A hybrid model of ureteral stent change - ambulatory cystoscopy suite under local anesthesia versus operating room under general or monitored anesthesia.World journal of urology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the safety, efficacy, tolerability, and cost-effectiveness of bedside or office-based ureteric stent insertion.
methodsFollowing Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Protocols (PRISMA-P) and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 guidelines, we searched PubMed/the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), the Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Dimensions for English-language studies from 1978 to April 2023. Inclusion criteria focused on primary ureteric stent placements outside of the operating theatre (OT).
resultsA total of 15 studies involving 2072 stents were included. Success rates for correctly positioned stents in bedside or office-based insertions ranged from 60% to 95.8%, with most studies reporting ≥80% success rates. Common failure reasons included impacted stones and difficulty identifying the ureteric orifice. Pain and tolerability were assessed using various methods, with validated tools indicating moderate pain levels, but most patients would undergo the procedure again under local anaesthesia. Complication rates were generally low, with minor complications such as haematuria or postoperative fever being the most common. Procedural costs were significantly lower in non-OT settings, with estimates indicating savings of up to four-fold.
conclusionBedside or office-based ureteric stent insertion is a viable alternative to OT procedures, offering high success rates, manageable pain levels, low complication rates, and substantial cost savings. This approach is particularly advantageous in settings with limited OT access, highlighting its potential for broader adoption in urological practice. Future research should focus on standardising pain assessment methods and randomised studies.
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.