ReviewFrontiers in surgery2026
Effects of ureteral stent removal using an extraction string following ureteroscopic lithotripsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Review in Frontiers in surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Extraction-string ureteral stents and postoperative infection after flexible ureteroscopy: an IPTW-adjusted analysis.Urolithiasis · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ureteral stent removal using an extraction string after lithotripsy is gaining popularity; however, evidence regarding patient outcomes remains limited. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate pain and complications associated between string-based and cystoscopic stent removal. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus was conducted up to September 2025. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared string-based stent removal with cystoscopic stent removal. The primary outcome was pain, assessed using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), with subgroup analyses performed by sex. Secondary outcomes included urinary tract infection (UTI) and other complications. Data synthesis was performed using Review Manager 5.4, and risk of bias and certainty of evidence were assessed using the GRADE approach. Results: Five RCTs involving 598 patients were included. Compared with cystoscopic stent removal, string-based stent removal significantly reduced pain [mean difference (MD) -2.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.55 to -1.43, Conclusion: Extraction string-based removal may be associated with lower pain, especially among female patients, without a clear increase in complications. However, the limited number of studies and substantial heterogeneity result in a low certainty of evidence, and further well-designed RCTs are needed to confirm these findings. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251069187, PROSPERO CRD420251069187.
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.