Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40952639›Full record

SynthesisInternational urology and nephrology2026

Costs of resolving a ureteral or kidney stone episode worldwide: a systematic review.

Othmane Zekraoui, Ibrahim Moussa, Nick Lee, David-Dan Nguyen, Abbas Guennoun, David Bouhadana, Liam Murad, Nicolas Siron, Kelven Chen, Naeem Bhojani

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International urology and nephrology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Othmane ZekraouiFaculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Ibrahim MoussaFaculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Nick LeeDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Université de Montréal Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada.
David-Dan NguyenDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abbas GuennounDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Université de Montréal Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada.
David BouhadanaDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Liam MuradFaculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Nicolas SironDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Université de Montréal Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Kelven ChenDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, Université de Montréal Health Center, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Naeem BhojaniFaculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada. naeem.bhojani@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis systematic review compares the costs of common urolithiasis surgical options worldwide, identifies sources of heterogeneity in cost reporting, and propose recommendations for standardizing economic evaluations with the aim of reducing urolithiasis' financial burden globally.

methodsWe systematically searched Medline, EMBASE and Web of Science for studies published between 2014 and 2024. Included studies involved adult patients treated for a urolithiasis, described components of cost calculations, and provided a monetary value. Data was summarized qualitatively, and costs were first inflated, then converted to 2024 USD for comparability.

resultsAfter identifying 2,461 references, 38 studies from 13 countries met the inclusion criteria. Variations in the definition of stone-free status were noted, with 17 studies not specifying it at all. While most studies accounted for procedural and hospital stay costs, the rest of the cost calculation components varied significantly. The costs of managing an episode with URS ranged from 249.12 to 48,937 USD, as for ESWL, the costs ranged from 177.48 to 10,184.64 USD. The costs of managing an episode using PCNL presented the largest disparity, ranging from 164.89 to 101,510.23 USD. Finally, studies assessing the management using MET reported costs from 293.89 to 17,982.19 USD.

conclusionOur review highlights substantial variability in urolithiasis treatment costs worldwide. Standardizing cost calculation methods and clinical success definitions is critical for guiding cost-effective decision-making and supporting evidence-based strategies to optimize resource allocation and reduce urolithiasis' financial burden globally.

Indexed as

Health Care CostsKidney CalculiUreteral CalculiGlobal HealthHumansCosts and cost analysisGlobal healthNephrolithiasisUreterolithiasis

Identifiers

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.