Trial reportBJU international2026
Patient-reported outcome measures of percutaneous nephrostomy vs JJ stent in obstructive urolithiasis: results of 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
26 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effects of percutaneous nephrostomy (PCN) and JJ ureteric stent (JJ) for urinary tract decompression in patients with obstructive urolithiasis on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), pain scores, urinary symptoms, and patient satisfaction. PATIENTS AND
methodsIn 11 hospitals, 204 patients with obstructive urolithiasis were randomised to JJ or PCN placement. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were assessed until stone passage, surgical removal, or at 3 months.
resultsBoth PCN and JJ effectively improved HRQoL index scores (PCN: pre-decompression 0.70, 1 day post-decompression 0.82, P = 0.003; JJ: pre 0.59, post 0.85, P < 0.001), pain scores (PCN: pre 4.9, post 1.3, P < 0.001; JJ: pre 5.5, post 1.3, P < 0.001), and achieved patient satisfaction (score at discharge PCN: 7.9; JJ: 8.2), with no significant differences between interventions in overall HRQoL (generalised estimating equation [GEE] P = 0.7) or mean daily pain scores (GEE P = 0.4). PCN led to more self-care difficulties (patients reporting no problems: PCN 74%, JJ 91%, P = 0.023), while JJ recipients reported more urinary symptoms and higher peak pain intensity (pain score PCN: 2.3, JJ: 3.7, between groups P = 0.018). Despite symptoms, more JJ recipients preferred the same intervention in future (60%), than PCN recipients (31%) (P < 0.001). Survey-based data collection may introduce response bias (response rate 59%).
conclusionIn patients with obstructive urolithiasis, urinary decompression with PCN and JJ improved HRQoL and pain comparably. JJ causes more urinary symptoms and peak pain but allows better self-care. Baseline self-care and urinary symptoms should guide shared decision-making. Drainage duration should be minimised.
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.