SynthesisUrologia internationalis2025
Effectiveness of Pneumatic versus Laser Lithotripsy for Upper Tract Urolithiasis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Urologia internationalis, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThis meta-analysis compares the efficacy and safety of laser lithotripsy (LL) and pneumatic lithotripsy (PL) for upper tract urolithiasis.
methodsA systematic search of MEDLINE via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library identified trials comparing LL and PL. Primary outcomes included stone-free rate, operative time, and complications. A random-effects model was used, and heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics.
resultsThe systematic literature search identified 6,420 studies of which 43 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The studies reported data from 7,377 patients. Random effect meta-analysis for stone free rate included data from 36 studies and yielded statistically significant higher stone free rates for LL with a pooled OR = 2.19 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.63-2.94, p < 0.001). Heterogeneity was substantial (I2 = 62%; p < 0.01). Random effect meta-analysis for operative time included data from 31 studies and yielded no statistically significant difference in operative time with a pooled MD = -1.09 min (95% CI = -4.39-2. 20, p = 0.5161). Heterogeneity was considerable (I2 = 98%; p < 0.01). Random effect meta-analysis for complications included data from 14 studies and yielded statistically significant fewer complications for LL with a pooled OR = 0.68 (95% CI = 0.48-0.96, p = 0.0276). Heterogeneity was limited (I2 = 27%; p = 0.17).
conclusionsLL might be superior to PL in upper tract urolithiasis therapy.
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.