Trial reportBJU international2026
Cost-effectiveness of percutaneous nephrostomy vs JJ stent in obstructive urolithiasis: economic evaluation alongside the STent Or NEphrostomy (STONE) randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BJU international, 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
28 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate whether percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) is cost-effective compared to JJ ureteric stent in the acute treatment of obstructive urolithiasis. PATIENTS AND
methodsA randomised controlled non-inferiority trial with 204 patients with obstructive urolithiasis requiring decompression. Participants were randomly assigned to either PCN or JJ stent, with follow-up until the stone was surgically removed or passed spontaneously. Effectiveness outcomes included time to recovery and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Costs were assessed from a societal perspective, incorporating healthcare, patient-related, and lost productivity costs.
resultsWeighted mean procedure costs were €685 for PCN and €792 for JJ. Mean total societal costs were €8468 for PCN and €7122 for JJ. Largest cost differences were in productivity loss and home care. Time to recovery and QALYs were similar between groups. The probability that JJ was cost-effective compared to PCN was 0.74 for quicker recovery time and 0.74 for QALYs at a willingness-to-pay threshold of €0. Some cost and quality-of-life data were self-reported, and the analysis reflects the Dutch healthcare system, which may limit generalisability.
conclusionThe JJ ureteric stent was found to be the likely cost-effective option compared to PCN, despite higher procedural costs. Procedural costs can be lowered by performing procedures outside of an operating theatre. Most societal costs were made during the waiting period for definitive stone removal; future research should investigate whether total cost can be lowered by reducing waiting times.
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.