ArticleUrolithiasis2026
Integrating advanced practice providers in kidney stone prevention: patterns, barriers, and opportunities.
Article in Urolithiasis, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Amid rising demand for urologic care and a projected workforce shortfall, advanced practice providers (APPs) are increasingly vital partners. Kidney stone prevention (KSP) represents a setting where APPs may improve access, efficiency, and continuity of care, yet data on their outpatient utilization remain limited. This study evaluated APP roles in KSP clinics and barriers to integration. An IRB-approved 12-question survey was distributed to Endourological Society members (January-March 2024). It assessed provider characteristics, practice settings, APP roles in KSP care, oversight models, satisfaction (5-point Likert scale), and perceived barriers. The response rate was 17% (69/413); 49.3% reported using APPs. United States (U.S.)-based urologists were more likely to employ APPs than international peers (76.3% vs. 16.1%). APPs were primarily in academic settings (85.3% overall; 93.1% in the U.S. cohort), performing metabolic urine interpretation (93.9%), serum lab review (90.9%), imaging review (87.9%), medication management (84.8%), and nutritional counseling (78.8%). Satisfaction was highest for serum lab monitoring (86.2%) and urine testing (83.3%), lower for imaging (63.3%). Half reported no formal physician oversight. Endourology fellowship training was associated with greater APP use on univariate analysis (OR 3.11, CI 1.06-10.1, P = 0.045), though not within the U.S. cohort (OR 2.40, CI 0.40-13.0, P = 0.300). Barriers included availability (41.2%), organizational constraints (41.2%), and cost (38.2%). APPs are increasingly integrated into KSP clinics, particularly in U.S. academic practices, with high satisfaction and broad clinical responsibilities. Persistent geographic disparities and variable oversight highlight the need for standardized competencies, clearer guidelines, and further study. Thoughtful APP integration may enhance access, quality, and sustainability of urologic care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41784813What 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.