SynthesisPloS one2024
Evaluating the safety and effectiveness of α-blockers versus mirabegron for medical expulsive therapy in ureteral calculi: A Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. 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.
- Review
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
INTRODUCTION AND
aimThe main categories of drugs employed for medical expulsive therapy in patients with ureteral calculi (UC) are alpha-blockers (α-B) and beta-adrenoceptor agonists. This meta-analysis evaluated the safety and effectiveness of α-B versus mirabegron (MIR) in treating UC.
methodsFrom January 1980 to October 2024, we extensively searched the Pubmed, Web of science, Cochrane and EMBASE databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effectiveness of α-B and MIR in managing UC. Furthermore, a systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out.
resultsThe meta-analysis included six publications with 592 patients, comparing α-B with MIR. The stone expulsion rate (SER) was found to be significantly greater in the α-B group than in the MIR group, as indicated by an odds ratio (OR) of 1.51 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.05 to 2.16, P = 0.03) in the meta-analysis. However, no significant differences were found between the α-B group and the MIR group for stone expulsion time (SET) (mean difference [MD]: 1.20; 95% CI, -2.71 to 5.10; P = 0.55), pain episodes (PE) (MD: 0.36; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.76; P = 0.07), or analgesic requirements (MD: 0.79; 95% CI, -0.37 to 1.94; P = 0.18). The α-B group exhibited a significantly higher incidence of adverse events compared to the MIR group for orthostatic hypotension (OR 12.16, 95% CI 3.36 to 43.95, P = 0.0001), headache (OR 3.46, 95% CI 1.41 to 8.49, P = 0.007), and retrograde ejaculation (OR 16.30, 95% CI 5.87 to 45.31, P < 0.00001). While in the dizziness (OR 1.65, 95% CI 0.67 to 4.09, p = 0.28), it made no difference.
conclusionsOur meta-analysis identified a substantial enhancement in the SER among patients with UC who received α-B therapy instead of those who were administered MIR therapy. Nonetheless, α-B therapy was connected to an increased risk of adverse events. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, ID CRD42024595934.
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.