ReviewCentral European journal of urology2024
Surveys in endourology over time: what are the urologist preferences? A trend review over a 24-year period (2000-2024).
Review in Central European journal of urology, 2024. 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: Surveys are a powerful tool to investigate practice patterns and preferences among health care practitioners. This narrative review aims to analyse the trends of publications on surveys related to endourological procedures in the new millennium, to highlight changes and preferences in urologists' practice of urolithiasis. Material and methods: A literature search was conducted in Google Scholar and PubMed focusing on English language surveys published between 2000 and 2024 (24 years). The SPICE (Setting, Perspective, Intervention, Comparison, Evaluation) framework was used to frame and answer the question (S: urology practice; P: senior or training urologists; I: surveys since 2000 C: none; E: pathways in the management of urolithiasis). The studies were divided into two 12-year periods: period 1 (2000-2011) and period 2 (2012-2024). The studied procedures were related to the management of stone disease including ureteroscopy (URS), percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), and shockwave lithotripsy (SWL). Results: Over a 24-year timeframe, 27 surveys were selected on the subject, with a relative increase from period one to period two (23.7%). Notably, the technique experiencing significant growth was URS, with just one survey published in the initial period compared to 11 in the subsequent period and a decrease toward less utilisation of SWL. The surveys showed that urologists are moving towards minimisation of both PCNL and URS, with greater use of access sheath and lasers for fragmentation, although variations in practice patterns are observed worldwide, especially related to the use and duration of both pre- and post-operative stent insertions. Most surveys suggest that the majority of urologists follow international guidelines during their clinical practice. Conclusions: Endourology surveys have experienced steady growth in publications. Instrumentation trends emphasise miniaturisation, stent indications, laser types, and disposable ureteroscopes. Recently, there has been a focus on endourological training, imaging, ergonomics, and guidelines to enhance patient and surgical outcomes.
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.