SynthesisWorld journal of urology2026
Evaluation of outcomes in kidney stone management: stone-free rate vs. cost vs. quality of life: a systematic review from EAU endourology.
Synthesis in World journal of urology, 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.
- Magnetically actuated microrobots in urolithiasis: emerging frontiers in kidney stone diagnosis and management.Inflammopharmacology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNephrolithiasis is a prevalent and highly recurrent pathology that affects up to 15% of the global population. The three main treatment modalities of nephrolithiasis are extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL), ureteroscopy (URS), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL), however they differ in efficacy, invasiveness, and cost. Although stone-free rate (SFR) remains the traditional measure of success, a comprehensive evaluation should integrate economic and patient-centered outcomes.
objectiveTo compare stone-free rate (SFR), cost, and quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes for patients undergoing ESWL, URS, and PCNL.
methodsA systematic review was conducted following the PICO framework. We identified comparative studies involving adult patients (≥ 18 years) with renal stones using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library. The primary outcomes included SFR, treatment cost, clinical outcomes and QoL scores. Quantitative and qualitative meta-analyses were performed in R software.
resultsForty six studies were included in this systematic review. PCNL achieved the highest SFR, followed by URS, and ESWL demonstrated the lowest (RR = 1.13 for PCNL vs. URS, p < 0.0001). Moreover, ESWL was the cheapest, while PCNL was the most expensive. Hospital stay and transfusion rates increased proportionally with procedural invasiveness. URS had the lowest complication and retreatment rates, while ESWL and PCNL had the highest retreatment rates and complication rates respectively. No statistically significant differences were found in QoL outcomes among the treatment modalities.
conclusionsPCNL remains the most effective but most invasive treatment, URS offers a balanced compromise of efficacy, safety, and cost, while ESWL is the least invasive and most economical option but carries the highest risk of retreatment. Future studies should standardize reporting of SFR, cost-effectiveness, quality-of-life measures, and procedural variations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42001348What 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.