ArticleWorld journal of urology2024
The effectiveness and safety between prone position and supine position for ultrasound guided shock wave lithotripsy in proximal ureteral stones: a multi-center prospective propensity score-matching study.
Article in World journal of urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) has been considered to be effective in treating ureteral stones, a definitive conclusion remains unclear on which patient's position is the optimal option for proximal ureteral stones. The purpose of this study is to assess the ideal position of ultrasound guided SWL for the treatment of proximal ureteral stones.
methodsThis prospective study was conducted in multi-center from June 2020 to December 2023. Patients who underwent SWL in prone or supine position for proximal stones were enrolled in this study. The primary outcome was stone-free rate (SFR); the secondary outcome was complete SFR, sessions of SWL, and complications. Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was performed.
resultsFinally, 1187 patients with proximal ureteral stones were enrolled in this study; of which 50.5% (599) were treated with prone position and 49.5% (588) underwent supine position. After 1:1 PSM, the prone position group was superior in SFR (85.7% vs. 77.4%, P = 0.001), and complete SFR (83.3% vs. 75.0%, P = 0.001) compared with the supine potion group. The sessions of SWL (1.27 vs. 1.20, P = 0.092) and complications rate (all P values > 0.05) were comparable between the two groups. In addition, the prone group had shorter skin-to-stone distance (SSD) on ultrasound than the supine group (50 mm vs. 101 mm, P < 0.001).
conclusionThis multi-center prospective PSM study demonstrated that the prone position could increase the SFR and had comparable safety for ultrasound guided SWL among patients with proximal ureteral stones. Therefore, we advocate its priority application to patients with proximal ureteral stones when the prone position is possible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39722057What 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.