ReviewInternational urology and nephrology2026
Medical expulsive therapies for ureteric stones: an umbrella review of network meta-analyses with novel evidence grading.
Review in International urology and nephrology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is uncertainty about the ranking of effectiveness of the available medical expulsive therapies (MET) for ureteric stones, a common and painful urological condition. We comprehensively compared all currently available METs employing a novel evidence grading system to evaluate published network meta-analyses (NMA).
methodsFollowing prospective registration (PROSPERO CRD #42023472770), we conducted an umbrella review incorporating NMAs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating various METs. Literature searches were performed in PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar until January 2026. The primary outcome was the rate of ureteric stone expulsion. Calculated covered area (CCA) estimated the overlap of studies between NMAs. Evidence certainty was assessed using a novel modified GRADE methodology incorporating AMSTAR-2. Surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) based on probability of being the best intervention was used for comparing METs.
resultsEight NMAs, comprising 147 RCTs were selected. The CCA showed high (24.5%) overall overlap. Evidence certainty was high-moderate in 5 NMAs, and low in 3. The highest-ranked METs were Naftopidil plus corticosteroids (SUCRA 91.8% and 90.6% in 1 high and 1 moderate certainty NMA) and Silodosin (SUCRA 94.8% and 82.5% in 1 moderate and 1 low certainty NMA).
conclusionsNaftopidil plus corticosteroids was the most effective MET for stone expulsion based on evidence certainty assessment, followed by Silodosin. Clinical care and future research should take into account the ranking evidence collated in this umbrella review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42371350What 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.