Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39485568›Full record

ArticleUrolithiasis2024

Actual clinical practice pattern in SWL after COVID-19 era: a critical evaluation from different aspects.

Erhan Erdoğan, Göksu Sarıca, Cahit Şahin, Kemal Sarıca

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Urolithiasis, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Erhan ErdoğanDepartment of Urology, Sancaktepe Sehit Prof. Dr. Ilhan Varank Research and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. erhandr@hotmail.com.
Göksu SarıcaMedical School, Last Year in Biruni University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Cahit ŞahinDepartment of Urology, Sancaktepe Sehit Prof. Dr. Ilhan Varank Research and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.
Kemal SarıcaDepartment of Urology, Sancaktepe Sehit Prof. Dr. Ilhan Varank Research and Training Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To outline the current status of Shock Wave Lithotripsy (SWL) in stone treatment and the changes in the mode of application after the COVID-19 pandemic along with critical factors affecting the clinical practice of this particular procedure. This study targeted national and international urology experts who could share and contribute their experiences and perspectives on SWL practices after COVID-19 era. Approximately 650 urology specialists were invited to participate in the survey based study via Google Forms. Participation was voluntary and 398 of the invited participants completed the survey, yielding an acceptable response rate of approximately 61.23%. This survey highlights significant findings that shed light on the changes in clinical SWL applications. Nearly half of SWL procedures are performed by technicians or nurses instead of experienced urologists, potentially affecting the proper application and outcomes of the procedure. SWL seemed to be applied on a guideline (GL) indications based manner by the majority of the participants. Fluoroscopy remains still as the most commonly used method for radiological assessment, underscoring the necessity to teach sonography applications to younger urologists. Key reasons for the limited clinical application of SWL include the absence of lithotripters in the departments, high lithotriptor costs and significantly lower reimbursement rates compared to PNL and fURS modalities. Finally, an increase in SWL utilization rates has been observed post-COVID-19, highlighting its certain advantages realized during this period. These findings provide important insights into the role of SWL in stone treatment and the main factors influencing its clinical application practices. Although the popularity of SWL in the management of urinary stones is being stated to decline particularly in the last two decades, data obtained in this survey emphasized well that it is still a viable option especially for stones smaller than 15 mm. Our findings highlight the enduring relevance of SWL in contemporary stone therapy protocols in the context of COVID-19, where outpatient, non-invasive procedures are preferred. In addition to the consideration of certain factors affecting the rate of its application in clinical practice, to achieve high success rates with minimal complications in SWL, strategic patient selection and adherence to procedure guidelines seem to be crucial.

Indexed as

COVID-19LithotripsyPractice Patterns, Physicians'HumansSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesUrologyClinical practice patternsCOVID-19 impactSurveySWL

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.