SynthesisWorld journal of urology2026
Timing of definitive stone management in acute obstructive urolithiasis: does early intervention improve outcomes? A meta-analysis.
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. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis meta-analysis evaluated whether the timing of definitive stone removal influences clinical outcomes in patients with obstructive or infection-associated urolithiasis, comparing early versus delayed intervention strategies.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was performed through November 2025. Studies comparing early (≤ 72 h after presentation or drainage) and delayed (> 72 h) definitive procedures were included. Primary endpoints were postoperative infection and overall complications (Clavien–Dindo grade ≥ II); secondary outcomes comprised postoperative sepsis and readmission. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using random-effects models. Subgroup analyses were stratified by population type and definition of early timing, and sensitivity analyses were performed by sequential study exclusion. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot symmetry and Peters’ test.
resultsTen studies encompassing 14,611 patients were included. Compared with delayed management, early intervention showed no significant difference in overall complication rates (RR = 1.28, 95% CI 0.92–1.79, I² = 0%). Similarly, risks of postoperative infection (RR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.29–2.58), readmission (RR = 1.10, 95% CI 0.78–1.55), and sepsis (RR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.43–1.79) were comparable. Subgroup analyses indicated that heterogeneity was mainly driven by the definition of “early” and clinical population (P = 0.0105). Procedures performed within 12–48 h after stabilization tended to yield a lower infection rate, whereas postponement beyond 48 h or until post-drainage offered no additional safety advantage. No significant publication bias was detected (Peters’ p > 0.05).
conclusionsDefinitive stone management within 24–72 h following clinical stabilization appears safe and does not increase postoperative morbidity relative to delayed surgery. These findings suggest that, in carefully selected and clinically stabilized patients, early definitive stone removal appears non-inferior to delayed management with respect to postoperative safety outcomes. Rather than advocating universal early intervention, our results support an individualized, physiology-guided approach to timing decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42043450What 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.