SynthesisInternational urology and nephrology2026
Costs of resolving a ureteral or kidney stone episode worldwide: a systematic review.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
40952639What 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.