ReviewCentral European journal of urology2025
Ureteral stents with extraction strings - a review on infection risk and prevention.
Review in Central European journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Extraction-string ureteral stents and postoperative infection after flexible ureteroscopy: an IPTW-adjusted analysis.Urolithiasis · 2026Observational
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
Introduction: This review aims to determine whether the use of ureteral stents with extraction strings in adult patients undergoing upper urinary tract endoscopic procedures results in a higher incidence of urinary tract infections (UTIs) compared to stents without strings. Material and methods: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Studies evaluating differences in UTI rates among adult patients with ureteral stents with or without extraction strings were included. Data on UTI rates, antibiotic prophylaxis protocols, and stent dwell time were extracted. Results: The review included 11 trials published between 2015 and 2023. One multicenter retrospective study involving 4,392 patients reported a significantly higher UTI rate in patients with extraction strings (2.1% vs 1.1%, p = 0.006). In the remaining 10 studies, including four randomized controlled trials, the differences were not statistically significant. Antibiotic prophylaxis was described in five studies. In two studies, a single perioperative antibiotic dose was administered, with a total UTI rate of 6.8% (28/410). In contrast, three studies using prolonged prophylactic antibiotic regimens reported a total UTI rate of 3.2% (13/403). The impact of stent dwell time on UTI risk could not be determined. The risk of bias was high in 10 studies and moderate in one retrospective study. Conclusions: Based on low-quality evidence, the difference in UTI risk between ureteral stents with and without extraction strings appears to be minimal and statistically insignificant. Well-designed studies with standardized methodologies are needed to clarify these findings.
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.