Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39944399›Full record

ArticleEuropean urology open science2025

Intrarenal Pressure Monitoring During Ureteroscopy: A Delphi Panel Consensus.

Bhaskar Somani, Niall Davis, Esteban Emiliani, Mehmet Ilker Göcke, Helene Jung, Etienne Xavier Keller, Arkadiusz Miernik, Silvia Proietti, Ben Turney, Oliver Wiseman and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European urology open science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors.

Bhaskar SomaniDepartment of Urology University Hospital Southampton Southampton UK.
Niall DavisDepartment of Urology Beaumont Hospital Dublin Ireland.
Esteban EmilianiDepartment of Urology Fundación Puigvert Autonomous University of Barcelona Barcelona Spain.
Mehmet Ilker GöckeDepartment of Urology Ankara University School of Medicine Ankara Turkey.
Helene JungDepartment of Urology Hospital Lillebaelt Vejle Denmark.
Etienne Xavier KellerDepartment of Urology University Hospital Zurich Zurich Switzerland.
Arkadiusz MiernikDepartment of Urology University Medical Centre Freiburg Freiburg Germany.
Silvia ProiettiDepartment of Urology San Raffaele Hospital Milan Italy.
Ben TurneyDepartment of Urology University of Oxford Oxford UK.
Oliver WisemanDepartment of Urology Addenbrookes Hospital Cambridge UK.
Antonia Bosworth SmithHealth Economics Coreva Scientific Königswinter Germany.
Marco CaterinoHealth Economics Coreva Scientific Königswinter Germany.
Rhodri SaundersHealth Economics Coreva Scientific Königswinter Germany.
Mohammed BoulmaniUrology and Pelvic Health Boston Scientific Paris France.
Olivier TraxerGroupe de Recherche Clinique sur la Lithiase Urinaire Sorbonne Université Paris France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and objective: Elevated intrarenal pressure (IRP) may increase the risk of complications in patients undergoing ureteroscopy. As there is limited clarity on a threshold value for high IRP, how to manage high IRP, or which patients are at greater risk of complications due to high IRP, we used the Delphi methodology to understand expert opinion in this area. Methods: The Delphi process comprised two online surveys and an in-person meeting. During the in-person meeting, areas of disagreement and consensus were explored. Consensus statements were developed and voted on to determine the level of consensus. The study was granted a waiver by HML IRB Research and Ethics (reference number 2193). Key findings and limitations: The pan-European panel started with 12 and ended with 11 experienced endourologists. Eleven consensus statements were developed. The statements cover topics such as the definition of high IRP, complications linked to high IRP, and patient risk factors for these complications. After anonymous voting, consensus was achieved for all the statements. Two had a strong level and nine had a moderate level of agreement. There was no consensus on an IRP threshold, although the majority would be concerned for patient safety at a pressure above 61-80 cm H Conclusions and clinical implications: Any IRP above normal physiological levels should be considered high. High IRP during ureteroscopy is a concern for patient safety. It is important to understand links between high IRP, patient characteristics, and complications. We call for additional research to better understand these risks and to inform refinements to clinical practice. Patient summary: A group of experts were asked their opinion on pressure within the kidney (intrarenal pressure, IRP) during a procedure called ureteroscopy (URS), when a narrow telescope is passed through the bladder and into the tube connected to the kidney. Statements that the panel agreed on were developed. These statements show that there is a concern about high IRP during URS as it may be linked to a higher risk of complications for the patient. More research is needed to better understand high IRP and its link to patient outcomes.

Indexed as

ConsensusIntrarenal pressureKidney stoneUreteroscopyUrolithiasis

Identifiers

PMID39944399
PMCPMC11815979

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.