SynthesisBMC urology2025
Percutaneous nephroscopy versus flexible ureteroscopy in the treatment of calyceal diverticulum calculi: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC urology, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is still controversy about the best minimally invasive surgical method for the treatment of calyceal diverticulum calculi. We conducted meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PCNL and FURL in the treatment of calyceal diverticulum calculi.
methodsWe searched Pubmed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, Clinical trial platform, CNKI, VIP until April 2024. We utilized the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS, 0 to 9 stars) to assess the quality of the included literature.
resultsTotally 15 high-quality studies with 755 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed that FURL group was better than PCNL group in blood loss [SMD = 1.713, 95%CI:(0.858, 2.568), Z = 3.928, P = 0.000] and hospital stay [SMD = 2.611, 95%CI: (1.726, 3.496), Z = 5.784, P = 0.000], there was no significant difference in operating time [SMD = 0.079, 95%CI:(-0.43, 0.589), Z = 0.306, P = 0.760], complication rate [OR = 1.793,95%CI: (0.952,2.602), Z = 1.586, P = 0.113], stone-free rate [OR = 1.339, 95%CI: (0.576, 3.112), Z = 0.678, P = 0.497] and symptom-free rate [OR = 3.826,95%CI: (0.561,10.238), Z = 0.966, P = 0.334] as well.
conclusionWhether FURL is indeed superior to PCNL in safety, whether FURL's efficacy is really close to PCNL, and whether FURL can surpass PCNL as the first choice for the treatment of renal diverticulum stones in the future need to be further verified by multi-center, large-sample and high-quality studies.
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.