Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39487358›Full record

SynthesisWorld journal of urology2024

Clinical significance of stone culture during endourological procedures in predicting post-operative urinary sepsis: should it be a standard of care-evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis from EAU section of Urolithiasis (EULIS).

Francesco Ripa, Clara Cerrato, Zafer Tandoğdu, Christian Seitz, Emanuele Montanari, Simon Choong, Alimuddin Zumla, Thomas Herrmann, Bhaskar Somani, EAU section of Urolithiasis

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

10 authors.

Francesco RipaDepartment of Urology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK. f.ripa@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7803-3879
Clara CerratoDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
Zafer TandoğduDepartment of Urology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK.
Christian SeitzDepartment of Urology, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Emanuele MontanariDepartment of Urology, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy.
Simon ChoongDepartment of Urology, University College London Hospitals, London, UK.
Alimuddin ZumlaDepartment of Infection, Division of Infection and Immunity, Centre for Clinical Microbiology, University College London, London, UK.
Thomas HerrmannDepartment of Urology, Kantonspital Frauenfeld, Frauenfeld, Switzerland.
Bhaskar SomaniDepartment of Urology, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK.
EAU section of Urolithiasis

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeUrinary sepsis is the leading cause of mortality in the setting of endourological procedures for stone treatment such as URS and PCNL; renal stones themselves may be a source of infection. Aim of this study is to determine the diagnostic accuracy of stone cultures (SC) collected during URS and PCNL in predicting post-operative septic complications, compared to preoperative bladder urine culture (BUC).

methodsWe performed a systematic review (SR) of literature according to the PRISMA guidelines; Literature quality was evaluated according to The Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool. A univariate meta-analysis (MA) was used to estimate pooled log odds ratio of BUC and SC, respectively.

resultsOverall, 14 studies including 3646 patients met the inclusion criteria. Eight studies reported data from PCNL only; three from URS only; three from both URS and PCNL. Stone cultures showed a higher sensitivity (0.52 vs 0.32) and higher positive predictive value (0.28 vs 0.21) in predicting post-operative sepsis, compared to bladder urine cultures. The pool-weighted logarithmic odd risk (LOR) for BUC was 2.30 (95% CI 1.51-3.49, p < 0.001); the LOR for stone cultures (SC) in predicting post-operative sepsis was 5.79 (95% CI 3.58-9.38, p < 0.001).

conclusionThe evidence from this SR and MA suggests that intraoperative SC from stone fragments retrieved during endourological procedures are better predictors of the likelihood of occurrence of post-operative sepsis compared to pre-operative BUC. Therefore, SC should be a standard of care in patients undergoing endourological interventions.

Indexed as

Postoperative ComplicationsSepsisClinical RelevanceHumansKidney CalculiNephrolithotomy, PercutaneousNephrostomy, PercutaneousPredictive Value of TestsStandard of CareUreteroscopyUrinary Tract InfectionsUrolithiasisPCNLSepsisStone cultureUreteroscopyUrine culture

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.