ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2025
Economic evaluation of surgical treatments for urolithiasis in a public hospital.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the costs associated with the surgical treatment of urolithiasis using percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) and ureterorenoscopy (URS), and to analyze the influence of direct and indirect costs on patient economy and the healthcare system. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 179 patients who underwent surgery for urolithiasis between January 1 and December 31, 2023, were included. Direct costs were recorded, encompassing expenses related to the surgical procedure, hospital stay, and healthcare costs, which included consultations, diagnostic procedures and non-hospital medications. Indirect costs were evaluated as non-healthcare costs, specifically focusing on productivity loss due to absenteeism in employed patients. Average costs per patient were calculated in euros (€).
resultsThe study found no statistically significant differences in the median total direct costs between patients undergoing PCNL: €15,976 [€13,135-€21,698] and URS: €14,044 [€9,691-€17,696]; p = 0.148). Similarly, the median indirect costs were comparable: €7,800 [€2,323-€7,800] for PCNL and €5,390 [€2,254-€11,136] for URS (p = 0.514). After the interventions, the median time off work was 56 days for PCNL and 30 days for URS, with associated median expenses of €3,558 (± €2,681) and €1,967 [€1,083-€3,168], respectively.
conclusionThe study found no significant differences in direct or indirect costs between PCNL and URS, suggesting both have a comparable economic impact. While factors like procedure complexity and hospitalization may affect individual costs, they do not create notable disparities. A comprehensive evaluation of both direct and indirect costs remains crucial to optimize resource allocation and support informed clinical decision-making in the healthcare system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40029507What 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.