SynthesisPloS one2025
Efficacy and safety of ureterorenoscopy in the elderly: A systematic review axnd meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveUreterorenoscopy (URS) is a common procedure performed for renal or upper ureteric stones. Nevertheless, the efficacy and safety of URS in the elderly is unclear. We conducted the first meta-analysis of literature comparing outcomes of URS between elderly and non-elderly patients.
methodsEmbase, PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases were searched for studies relevant to the review. The last date was 2nd September 2024. The elderly were defined as ≥ 65 or 60 years of age. Outcomes compared were stone-free rates (SFR), complications, and length of hospital stay (LOS).
resultsNine studies met the inclusion criteria. Pooled analysis showed that there was no difference in SFR between elderly and non-elderly groups after URS (OR: 0.96 95% CI: 0.81, 1.14 I2 = 3%). Meta-analysis failed to show any statistical significant in all complication rates (OR: 1.04 95% CI: 0.77, 1.40 I2 = 51%) as well as infectious (OR: 1.27 95% CI: 0.84, 1.92 I2 = 0%), medical (OR: 2.01 95% CI: 0.23, 17.57 I2 = 93%), surgical (OR: 1.18 95% CI: 0.68, 2.03 I2 = 0%) or Clavein Dindo grade ≥2 (OR: 1.02 95% CI: 0.60, 1.75 I2 = 0%) complications between elderly and non-elderly groups. Meta-analysis showed that the elderly had significantly longer LOS as compared to non-elderly patients (MD: 0.75 95% CI: 0.05, 1.45 I2 = 90%).
conclusionsURS seems to efficacious and safe in the elderly. Patients ≥60 or 65 years of age have similar SFR and complication rates as younger patients. However, LOS may be increased in the elderly. More robust studies taking into account baseline characteristics and importantly presenting rates are needed to validate the current results.
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.