Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40641810›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada2024

Nephrostomy Tube Versus Ureteral Stent for Obstructing Septic Calculi: A Nationwide Propensity Score-matched Analysis.

Rachel Wong, Jennifer Ziegler, Dhiraj S Bal, Sylvain A Lother, Premal Patel, Barret Rush

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada = Journal officiel de l'Association pour la microbiologie medicale et l'infectiologie Canada, 2024. 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. 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.

Rachel WongDepartment of Surgery, Section of Urology, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Jennifer ZieglerDepartment of Medicine, Section of Critical Care Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Dhiraj S BalUndergraduate Medical Education, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Sylvain A LotherDepartment of Medicine, Section of Critical Care Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Premal PatelDepartment of Surgery, Section of Urology, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Barret RushDepartment of Medicine, Section of Critical Care Medicine, Rady Faculty of Health Sciences, Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Sepsis secondary to obstructive uropathy is a urological emergency that requires urgent decompression using placement of a percutaneous nephrostomy tube (PCN) or retrograde ureteric stent (RUS). Whether selection of PCN or RUS impacts mortality remains uncertain. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort analysis using the 2006-2014 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS) of 34,009 patients with sepsis and obstructive uropathy who were treated with RUS or PCN. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay, need for mechanical ventilation, and need for dialysis. Multivariate logistic regression and propensity matched analyses were used to evaluate the effect of PCN or RUS on in-hospital mortality. Results: A total of 9,828 (28.9%) patients were treated with PCN and 24,181 (71.1%) with RUS. The unadjusted mortality for PCN and RUN patients was 5.3% and 2.8%, respectively. Those treated with PCN had a higher likelihood of requiring mechanical ventilation or hemodialysis. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, RUS had lower odds of mortality compared to PCN (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.63 to 0.83, Conclusion: There were no significant differences in mortality for patients treated with PCN versus RUS after propensity matching. Method of decompression should be guided by local practice. Further prospective randomized trials are needed.

Indexed as

obstructing septic stonepercutaneous nephrostomy tubesepsisseptic uropathyureteric stent

Identifiers

PMID40641810
PMCPMC12169433

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.