Trial reportJournal of medical Internet research2025
Satisfactory Evaluation of Call Service Using AI After Ureteral Stent Insertion: Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- An empirical study on the psychological impact of medical AI on patients undergoing dental surgery.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Visualized bibliometric panorama of ureteral stents (1975-present): trends and hotspots revealed.World journal of urology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUreteral stents, such as double-J stents, have become indispensable in urologic procedures but are associated with complications like hematuria and pain. While the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technology has led to its increasing application in the health sector, AI has not been used to provide information on potential complications and to facilitate subsequent measures in the event of such complications.
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the effectiveness of an AI-based prediction tool in providing patients with information about potential complications from ureteroscopy and ureteric stent placement and indicating the need for early additional therapy.
methodsOverall, 28 patients (aged 20-70 years) who underwent ureteral stent insertion for the first time without a history of psychological illness were consecutively included. A "reassurance-call" service was set up to equip patients with details about the procedure and postprocedure care, to monitor for complications and their severity. Patients were randomly allocated into 2 groups, reassurance-call by AI (group 1) and reassurance-call by humans (group 2). The primary outcome was the level of satisfaction with the reassurance-call service itself, measured using a Likert scale. Secondary outcomes included satisfaction with the AI-assisted reassurance-call service, also measured using a Likert scale, and the level of satisfaction (Likert scale and Visual Analogue Scale [VAS]) and anxiety (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and VAS) related to managing complications for both groups.
resultsOf the 28 recruited patients (14 in each group), 1 patient in group 2 dropped out. Baseline characteristics of patients showed no significant differences (all P>.05). Satisfaction with reassurance-call averaged 4.14 (SD 0.66; group 1) and 4.54 (SD 0.52; group 2), with no significant difference between AI and humans (P=.11). AI-assisted reassurance-call satisfaction averaged 3.43 (SD 0.94). Satisfaction about the management of complications using the Likert scale averaged 3.79 (SD 0.70) and 4.23 (SD 0.83), respectively, showing no significant difference (P=.14), but a significant difference was observed when using the VAS (P=.01), with 6.64 (SD 2.13) in group 1 and 8.69 (SD 1.80) in group 2. Anxiety about complications using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory averaged 36.43 (SD 9.17) and 39.23 (SD 8.51; P=.33), while anxiety assessed with VAS averaged 4.86 (SD 2.28) and 3.46 (SD 3.38; P=.18), respectively, showing no significant differences. Multiple regression analysis was performed on all outcomes, and humans showed superior satisfaction than AI in the management of complications. Otherwise, most of the other variables showed no significant differences (P.>05).
conclusionsThis is the first study to use AI for patient reassurance regarding complications after ureteric stent placement. The study found that patients were similarly satisfied for reassurance calls conducted by AI or humans. Further research in larger populations is warranted to confirm these findings.
trial registrationClinical Research Information System KCT0008062; https://tinyurl.com/4s8725w2.
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.