ArticleScientific reports2025
Ex vivo evaluation of anti-migration forces of ureteral self-expanding metal stents with different flange designs.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the anti-migration forces of ureteral self-expanding metal stents (SEMS) with various flange designs. In the initial study, 240 fresh porcine ureters were divided into ten groups to evaluate ten custom-made SEMS (Type I-X). Type I and II lacked flanges (8 mm and 10 mm diameters, respectively), while Types III-X had various proximal flange designs. In the subsequent study, 96 ureters were divided into four groups to evaluate four SEMS: a custom-made prototype with the same flange design as Type X (double-stepped shoulders) and three commercial stents, including Urexel, Uventa, and Allium. Proximal and distal anti-migration forces were measured using a universal testing machine. In the initial study, only Type X demonstrated a significantly higher distal anti-migration force than the 8-mm non-flanged SEMS (Type I) (P = 0.001). None of the SEMS (Types II-X) showed significantly higher proximal anti-migration force compared to Type I (all > 0.05). In the subsequent study, Uventa demonstrated significantly higher proximal and distal anti-migration forces than the prototype (P < 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively). The prototype demonstrated significantly higher proximal and distal anti-migration forces than Urexel (both P < 0.001). Allium unraveled during initial testing and was excluded from the analysis. Only the double-stepped shoulders improved distal anti-migration force among eight flange designs. Compared with commercial SEMS, the prototype featuring this design demonstrated higher anti-migration force than Urexel but lower than Uventa.
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.