ArticleTransplantation direct2025
Comparison of Magnetic and Conventional Double-J Stent Following Kidney Transplantation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Transplantation direct, 2025. 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.
- An evidence-based review by the EAU Endourology on standard practices and future directions for ureteral stents in transplant patients.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This monocentric, randomized controlled trial aims to compare the outcomes of kidney transplant recipients with magnetic double-J (DJ) stents versus conventional DJ stents. Specifically, we assessed stent-related symptoms, procedural difficulties, pain and duration of removal, and associated costs. Methods: A total of 30 patients were randomly assigned to receive either a magnetic DJ (mDJ) stent or a conventional, standard DJ (sDJ) stent during kidney transplantation using the Lich-Gregoir technique. Quality of life was evaluated with the USSQ 7-10 d postoperation. sDJs stents were removed cystoscopically by a urologist while mDJ stents were removed bedside by a transplant surgeon. The duration of removal and procedure-associated pain were documented. Questionnaires for physicians and patients were used to assess peri-interventional experience and issues. Additionally, costs associated with the removal of both stents were analyzed. Results: Quality of life showed no differences between the groups. Stent removal was successful in all cases, with no differences in duration of removal ( Conclusions: The use of mDJ stents in kidney transplantation is a safe alternative associated with comparable pain during removal. Additionally, it offers cost savings and reduces the logistical burden for both patients and hospitals.
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.