SynthesisBMC urology2025
Optimal stenting duration following ureteroscopy and nephrolithotomy: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Clinical and procedural factors influencing ureteral stent dwell time and removal methods after endourological procedures: a systematic review.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Complications and symptom burden of ureteral double-J stents: a systematic review of prevalence, risk factors, and management strategies.World journal of urology · 2026Pooled it
- Optimal duration of pre-stenting before RIRS: a prospective randomized study evaluating FANS-UAS placement success.World journal of urology · 2026Trial
- Comprehensive survey on urological stent practices by the European Association of Urology (EAU) Endourology.World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Research progress on treating urinary system stones using ureteroscopy combined With a negative-pressure suction sheath.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Review
- Optimal Timing for Ureteral Stent Removal After Ureteroscopy to Minimize Morbidity: A Single-Center Prospective Comparative Study.Advances in urology · 2026Article
- Toward Supportive Decision-Making for Ureteral Stent Removal: Development of a Morphology-Based X-Ray Analysis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evidence-based practice and future development of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) in urology: a multidimensional assessment based on the GRADE system.Journal of robotic surgery · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe optimal duration for ureteral stent placement following ureteroscopy remains unclear, with no consensus on its impact on patient outcomes. This study aims to evaluate the ideal stent duration by comparing post-procedure-related events (PREs) and complications.
methodsA comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Google Scholar identified studies comparing different durations of ureteral stenting after ureteroscopy. The primary outcome was the occurrence of PREs, while secondary outcomes focused on associated complications.
resultsFour studies were included, encompassing 1762 patients with stents removed with ≤ 5 days and 2231 patients with stents removed with ≥ 6 days. The incidence of PREs did not significantly differ between the two groups (OR: 1.26; 95% CI: 0.22-7.25; p = 0.79; I² = 98%). Patients with stent durations ≥ 6 days had higher rates of flank pain and hematuria. In contrast, fever and dysuria were more prevalent in patients with stents removed within 5 days.
conclusionAlthough no significant difference was observed in overall PRE rates, the distinct patterns of complications based on stent duration highlight the complexity of determining optimal stent placement time in clinical practice.
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.