SynthesisWorld journal of urology2026
Intervention versus observation for asymptomatic kidney stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe detection rate of asymptomatic stones has increased with advances in imaging technology. Although many such stones remain stable, some patients later experience pain, obstruction, infection, stone growth, or need for intervention. Current guideline-based management generally favors surveillance for many asymptomatic stones while emphasizing individualized shared decision-making. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare active stone-directed intervention versus observation for asymptomatic kidney stones.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from database inception to April 22, 2026, using a broad concept-based strategy combining terms for asymptomatic kidney stones and stone-directed interventions. Procedure-specific terms such as ureteroscopy, shock wave lithotripsy, and ultrasonic propulsion were included to improve sensitivity. Only RCTs comparing active intervention with observation were eligible. The primary synthesis focused on a composite stone-related recurrence outcome, with subsequent surgery, unscheduled stone-related visits, stone growth, fragment passage, and adverse events analyzed as secondary outcomes.
resultsSix RCTs involving 592 participants were included. Compared with observation, active intervention showed lower pooled odds of composite recurrence (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.18-0.69; I²=56.3%) and subsequent surgery (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25-0.80; I²=0%). The pooled estimate for unscheduled visits favored intervention numerically but was not statistically significant (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.07-1.28; I²=67.3%). Stone growth was reduced in two studies (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.09-0.59; I²=0%), whereas fragment passage was highly heterogeneous and not statistically significant (OR 7.32, 95% CI 0.44-122.34; I²=90%). Adverse events were similar between groups (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.66-2.03; I²=0.2%).
conclusionActive intervention may reduce subsequent stone-related surgery in selected patients with asymptomatic kidney stones, without a clear increase in adverse events. However, evidence for other outcomes remains uncertain because of the limited number of trials, heterogeneous interventions, variable outcome definitions, and imprecise estimates. When considering treatment strategies, individualized joint decision-making should be supported instead of applying routine intervention measures to all asymptomatic stones.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42289039What 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.