Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40549155›Full record

Trial reportWorld journal of urology2025

Efficacy of 6. 3Fr disposable digital flexible ureteroscope versus 7. 5Fr disposable digital flexible ureteroscope in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones < 1. 5 cm: a randomized controlled trial.

Tianfu Ding, Yangyang Xu, Yang Chen, Bo Xiao, Jianxing Li, Li Jianxing

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in World journal of urology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Tianfu DingDepartment of Urology, Research Center for Urinary Disease, School of Clinical Medicine, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 102218, China.
Yangyang XuDepartment of Urology, Research Center for Urinary Disease, School of Clinical Medicine, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 102218, China.
Yang ChenDepartment of Urology, Research Center for Urinary Disease, School of Clinical Medicine, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 102218, China.
Bo XiaoDepartment of Urology, Research Center for Urinary Disease, School of Clinical Medicine, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 102218, China. beidaxiaobo@163.com.
Jianxing LiDepartment of Urology, Research Center for Urinary Disease, School of Clinical Medicine, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 102218, China.
Li JianxingDepartment of Urology, Research Center for Urinary Disease, School of Clinical Medicine, Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 102218, China. lijianxing2015@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the curative effect of 6. 3Fr disposable digital flexible ureteroscope and 7. 5Fr disposable digital flexible ureteroscope in the treatment of upper urinary tract stones < 1. 5 cm. MATERIALS AND

methodsFrom October 2024 to January 2025, 70 patients with < 1. 5 cm upper urinary tract calculi in our hospital were randomly divided into 2 groups, 35 patients in Group 1 (6. 3Fr) were treated with 6. 3Fr HugeMed disposable electronic ureteroscopic laser lithotripsis. In the Group 2 (7. 5Fr), 35 cases were treated with 7. 5Fr common disposable electronic ureteroscope laser lithotripsis. The stone free rate, the success rate of the first stage operation, the operation time and the postoperative hospital stay were compared between the two groups.

resultsThe operation time of Group 1 (6. 3Fr) was shorter than that of Group 2 (7. 5Fr), and the difference was statistically significant (P = 0.011). The success rate of the first stage operation was 100% in the Group 1 (6. 3Fr) and 91. 43% in the Group 2 (7. 5Fr), with no statistical significance (P > 0.05). There were no significant differences in stone free rate, laser working time, hemoglobin decline on the first day after surgery, creatinine increase, postoperative hospitalization days and postoperative complications between the two groups (P > 0.05).

conclusionIn conclusion, the sheathless technique using the 6. 3Fr disposable digital flexible ureteroscope is safe and effective for upper urinary calculi < 1. 5 cm. Further investigations are warranted to evaluate its role in managing larger stones and other urological conditions.

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiLithotripsy, LaserUreteral CalculiUreteroscopesUreteroscopyAdultAgedDisposable EquipmentEquipment DesignFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOperative TimeTreatment OutcomeDisposable digital flexible ureteroscopeIntrapelvic pressureRetrograde intrarenal surgeryUreteral access sheaths

Identifiers

PMID40549155

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.