ReviewCureus2024
Evaluation of Magnetic Ureteric Stents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- Present and future of ureteral stent technology: a review by the EAU endourology section.World journal of urology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Magnetic ureteric stents offer a novel approach for simplifying stent removal, minimizing patient discomfort, and reducing procedural burdens. This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized evidence from 12 studies involving 1,297 patients to evaluate the efficacy and safety of magnetic stent removal compared to conventional methods. Key outcomes included reductions in procedural pain scores, shorter removal times, and high patient satisfaction. Complication rates for magnetic stents were comparable to conventional stents, while cost analysis favored magnetic removal due to reduced resource utilization. These findings suggest magnetic stents are a safe, effective, and patient-friendly alternative. Further research with larger sample sizes is warranted to confirm these benefits.
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.