ArticleUrology annals
Difference between magnetic versus conventional ureteral stents in morbidity and efficiency after double J stents removal: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Urology annals. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Multi-centric international 10-year review of surgical magnetic mechatronics in HPB, bariatrics, OB-GYN, urology and neurosurgery: minimally invasive technology, robot design & actuator-sensor fusion.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- A Randomized Study of a Comfort-Oriented Daytime Double-J Stent Removal Protocol: Effects on Pain, Anxiety, and Patient Satisfaction.Urology research & practice · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: Ureteral stents are crucial in urological surgery, promoting urine passage and preventing obstruction. They have undergone design, material, and covering changes to minimize pain and enhance efficiency. Researchers are exploring the use of magnetic stents, which use magnets attached to the stent's end. Aims: This research aims to evaluate and analyze the expulsion of magnetic double J (DJ) stents as compared to conventional methods DJ stents, using qualitative and quantitative data from the literature about morbidity, discomfort, cost, duration, safety, and efficiency. Settings and Design: This research is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Subjects and Methods: RCTs comparing the removal of magnetic DJ stents to conventional stents were identified through an extensive search Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane from January 2014 to January 2024. The search methodology and criteria for eligibility were developed using a modified PICO framework, and the risk of bias in the RCTs was evaluated with the RoB-2 tool. The removal duration, ureteral stent symptom questionnaire (USSQ), and pain (measured by visual analog scale) were pooled for meta-analysis. Statistical Analysis Used: The Cochrane Collaboration tool called Review Manager 5.4 will be used to collect quantitative data. The main outcome was evaluated using continuous data, with the mean difference (MD) and a 95% confidence interval (CI) applied. A Results: There were six RCT studies involving 570 participants that were finally eligible for the quantitative analysis. Magnetic DJ stent was found to significantly shorten the duration of removal (MD -30.51; 95% CI, -51.82--9.21; Conclusions: Magnetic DJ stent removal offers enhanced safety, efficiency, less pain, a shorter time of removal, and lower costs compared to conventional methods. However, it has a higher UUSQ score for urinary symptoms and sexual matters.
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.