ArticleCurrent urology2024
COVID-19 outbreak impact on urolithiasis treatments: A multicenter retrospective study across 9 urological centers in Italy.
Article in Current urology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disruptions in Renal Stone Management during the COVID-19 Pandemic: a Retrospective Single-Center Study.Maedica · 2025Article
- Changes in Ureteral Stone Treatment During COVID-19: A Single-Center Emergency Department Study.Research and reports in 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
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has posed challenges to the global health care community, affecting the management of upper urinary tract stones. Materials and methods: This retrospective study involved 9 Italian centers. We compared the 12-month period prior to COVID-19 (March 1, 2019, to February 28, 2020; Period A) with the COVID-19 period (March 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021, Period B). This study aimed to compare outcomes during Periods A and B, specifically focusing on the overall number of treatments, rate of urgent/elective cases, and operational complexity. Results: A total of 4018 procedures were collected, comprising 2176 procedures during Period A and 1842 during Period B, indicating a loss of 15.35% ( Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that COVID-19 significantly disrupted endourological services across the country. Our data underline how patients received treatment over a prolonged period, potentially increasing the risk of stone-related complications and patient discomfort.
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.