SynthesisPeerJ2026
Do ureteral stents improve clinical outcomes in renal transplantation? A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing stented and non-stented anastomosis techniques.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Low Rate of Urological Complications in Pediatric Kidney Transplantation Using a Stentless Ureteral Anastomosis.Pediatric transplantation · 2026Article
- Low rate of developing urological complications following kidney transplantation in adults using a stentless ureteral anastomosis.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
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
Background: Urological complications following renal transplantation (RT) remain a significant clinical challenge. The role of ureteral stents in mitigating these complications is a subject of ongoing debate. This study aimed to assess whether ureteral stents improve clinical outcomes in RT, comparing stented and non-stented anastomosis techniques. Methods: An extensive search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System from inception to November 26, 2025, following the PRISMA and AMSTAR standards. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024557423). The primary outcomes were urological mechanical complications (UMCs) and urinary tract infections (UTIs), whereas the secondary outcomes included hematuria, graft rejection, renal function, cost-effectiveness, stent-related complications, and quality of life (QOL). The Mantel-Haenszel test was used to calculate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the outcomes. Results: Sixteen RCTs involving 2,486 patients met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed that the stent group had a significantly lower incidence of urine leakage (RR = 0.25, 95% CI [0.13-0.47]) and ureteral obstruction or stricture (RR = 0.42, 95% CI [0.25-0.71]) compared to the non-stent group. However, the incidence of UTIs was higher in the stent group (RR = 1.41, 95% CI [1.08-1.84]). No significant differences were observed in hematuria, graft rejection, or renal function between groups. Conclusions: Routine ureteral stent placement in RT significantly reduces the incidence of UMCs despite potentially increasing the risk of UTIs. This balance between benefits and risks supports the continued use of ureteral stents in RT, pending further high-quality studies.
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.