Trial reportInternational urology and nephrology2026
Efficacy and safety of N-acetylcysteine vs. probiotics in in-vivo biofilm prevention on ureteral stents: a prospective randomized controlled pilot in vivo study.
Trial report in International urology and nephrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Review
- Imagining the future: the five "Laws" of endourethroplasty.International urology and nephrology · 2025Article
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
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) vs. probiotics in preventing biofilm formation on ureteral stents in selected patients. Ureteral stents are essential for managing urinary obstructions and renal stones and are prone to complications such as biofilm formation, which can lead to infections and stent malfunction. NAC is known for its mucolytic and antimicrobial properties, has shown potential in preventing biofilm formation on ureteral stents; however, clinical evidence is limited.
methodsThis prospective, open-label, randomized controlled experimental study was conducted in a tertiary care teaching hospital between October 2022 and March 2024. Sixty patients undergoing ureteral stent placement were randomized to receive NAC (600 mg twice daily) in Group I vs. probiotics (containing Streptococcus faecalis, Clostridium butyricum, Bacillus mesentericus, and Lactic Acid Bacillus) in Group II for 5 weeks. Primary outcomes included routine urine microscopy, culture, stent culture, and biofilm detection on the stent surfaces.
resultsGroup I showed significantly reduced (pyuria, positive urine cultures, and biofilm formation on stents) to group II. Biofilm was absent in group I but was detected in 6.7% of group II. No significant treatment-emergent adverse effects (TEAEs) were observed in either group.
conclusionNAC demonstrated a strong potential in preventing biofilm formation on ureteral stents, which correlated with improved outcomes in terms of reduced stent-associated bacterial growth, bacteriuria, and pyuria. However, further studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are needed to confirm these findings and assess the precise utility and long-term safety of NAC in clinical settings for ureteral stenting and UTIs. DRUG TRIAL REGISTRY: TCTR20250511001 dt 11th May '2025, https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/show/TCTR20250511001.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40788469What 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.