SynthesisInternational urology and nephrology2025
Comparison of laparoscopic-assisted flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy with percutaneous nephrolithotripsy and flexible ureteroscopy lithotripsy: a case-control study and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International urology and nephrology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effectiveness and safety profiles of percutaneous nephrolithotomy and ureteroscopic lithotripsy for proximal ureteral calculi.American journal of translational research · 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
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to compare the differences in stone clearance rate, infection rate, and bleeding risk among laparoscopic-assisted flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (LAFUL), percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL), and flexible ureteroscopic lithotripsy (FUL) through case-control studies and meta-analysis, to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of LAFUL.
methods1. Through systematic literature search, clinical studies related to LAFUL, PCNL, and FUL were screened, and data on stone clearance rate, infection rate, and bleeding events were collected and analyzed for three groups of patients, followed by meta-analysis. 2. Data of patients who met the single center inclusion criteria and received LAFUL (40 cases), PCNL (40 cases, FUL), and FUL (40 cases) treatments for kidney stones from January 2021 to December 2023 were collected. Using a case-control study method, relevant clinical data were analyzed using SPSS 26.0 software.
resultsA total of 31 studies involving 2974 patients were included. The results of case-control analysis showed the stone clearance rate in the LAFUL group (F = 225.19, P < 0.001) and the positive rate of postoperative urine bacterial culture (X
conclusionLAFUL shows potential in improving the stone clearance rate and reducing the risk of postoperative infection and bleeding, suggesting it may have certain advantages in the treatment of renal calculi.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39443431What 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.