SynthesisF1000Research2025
The comparison of totally ultrasound-guided versus fluoroscopy-guided shockwave lithotripsy in renal stone treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in F1000Research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) has been a well-known therapy since years ago, especially for renal stones less than 20 mm. This study compared the effectiveness of totally ultrasound-guided (US-guided) and fluoroscopy-guided (FS-guided) SWL in treating renal and ureteral stones. A protocol has been registered in PROSPERO databases for systematic reviews. A systematic literature search was conducted in five online databases (PubMed, ScienceDirect, EMBASE, ProQuest, and Scopus). We included all available articles that compared the effectiveness and safety of US-SWL to FS-SWL. A risk of bias assessment was done using Risk of Bias (Rob) Tools for randomized interventional studies and Risk of bias in non-randomized studies interventions (ROBINS-I) Tools for Non-randomized studies. The primary outcome was the stone-free rate, and the secondary outcome was the complication rate. Subgroup analyses were performed for adult and pediatric groups. A comprehensive literature search identified seven comparative articles that matched the criteria: two randomized trials and six retrospective cohort studies comprising 1,255 patients (609 using US-SWL). The results revealed a significant difference in overall stone-free rates between US-guided and FS-guided SWL RR 0.76(95% CI; 0.61-0.95, p=0.02) and in adults RR 0.76(95% CI; 0.60-0.96), but not children groups RR 0.68(95% CI; 0.24-1.88). US-SWL might be favourable due to the radiation-free procedure and real-time presentation. Complication rates were low, and no life-threatening complications were reported. In conclusion, US-guided SWL is more effective than FS-guided SWL for treating renal stones, with a low incidence of complications. Further randomized controlled trials with larger populations are needed to explore the comparison more accurately.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.