SynthesisFrontiers in pharmacology2025
The efficacy and safety of mirabegron and α-adrenergic receptor antagonist in the treatment of distal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of mirabegron compared to α-adrenergic receptor antagonists for treating distal ureteral stones. Methods: A comprehensive search of EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane databases was conducted to identify studies comparing mirabegron and α-adrenergic receptor antagonists for stone expulsion. The primary outcome was stone expulsion rate (SER), and secondary outcomes included stone expulsion interval (SEI) and pain episode frequency. Risk ratio (RR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% CIs were calculated. Results: Six studies involving 487 participants were included. There was no significant difference in SER between mirabegron and α-adrenergic receptor antagonists (RR = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.93-1.22; P = 0.34). SEI showed no significant difference either (MD = 0.05; 95% CI = -3.23 to 3.34; P = 0.58). However, pain episodes were significantly reduced in the mirabegron group (MD = -0.36; 95% CI = -0.63 to -0.09; P = 0.01). Subgroup analysis showed reduced pain episodes with mirabegron versus silodosin but not tamsulosin. Mirabegron also had fewer side effects like headache (RR = 0.34; 95% CI = 0.13-0.87; P = 0.02) and orthostatic hypotension (RR = 0.11; 95% CI = 0.02-0.55; P = 0.008), while dizziness and ejaculation dysfunction rates were comparable. Conclusion: Mirabegron reduced pain episodes during treatment for distal ureteral stones, particularly when compared to silodosin, despite no significant differences in SER or SEI. Its favorable safety profile suggests potential as a therapeutic option. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these findings.
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.