ArticleThe Journal of urology2025
Facilitated Clearance of Small, Asymptomatic Renal Stones With Burst Wave Lithotripsy and Ultrasonic Propulsion.
Article in The Journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04796792 (Ultrasound Technology to Fragment and Reposition Urinary Stones), which is not on this 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.
Ultrasound Technology to Fragment and Reposition Urinary Stones
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Burst wave lithotripsy for the treatment of obstructive ureteroliths in cats.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2026Article
- Current and perceived optimal use of point-of-care ultrasound in urology.The Canadian journal of urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe tested feasibility of burst wave lithotripsy and ultrasonic propulsion to noninvasively fragment and expel small, asymptomatic renal stones in awake participants. MATERIALS AND
methodsAdult patients suspected of having 2- to 7-mm stones were consented and screened for eligibility. Burst wave lithotripsy and ultrasonic propulsion were applied to up to 3 stones in 1 kidney of qualifying participants for a 30-minute total exposure. Participants completed a CT scan and the Wisconsin Stone Quality-of-Life (WISQOL) questionnaire within 90 days before and 120 days after the procedure. Participants were contacted weekly for 3 weeks after the procedure to assess adverse events (AEs). Outcomes included (1) no fragment > 2 mm, (2) unanticipated health care visits, (3) change in stone volume, (4) reported AEs, and (5) WISQOL score.
resultsForty-one participants were enrolled between April 2023 and October 2024. Twenty-one participants failed screening because no stones were seen, stones were too large or small, stone visibility was too deep or obstructed, or they declined to participate. Twenty participants with 31 stones received the research procedure with 7 undergoing a single repeat procedure. Twenty-two of 31 stones (71%) met the primary effectiveness outcome of no fragment > 2 mm, with 17 of 31 stones (55%) reported as stone free. Median stone volume reduction (IQR) was 100% (88%-100%). No participants returned unexpectedly for care related to the procedure. AEs were all grade I by modified Clavien classification. WISQOL scores improved on 10 of 15 completed questionnaires.
conclusionsSmall, asymptomatic renal stones were effectively and safely removed in awake participants in a clinic setting.
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.