ArticleCentral European journal of urology2026
The comparison of synchronous bilateral and unilateral percutaneous nephrolithotomy: Meta-analysis.
Article in Central European 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
Introduction: The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of synchronous bilateral PCNL (B-PCNL) compared with staged unilateral PCNL (U-PCNL) in patients with bilateral kidney stones. Material and methods: This analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251036639). The study population comprised adult patients (≥18 years) diagnosed with bilateral nephrolithiasis and treated using B-PCNL or U-PCNL. The primary outcomes were stone-free rate (SFR) and complication rates (Clavien-Dindo). A literature search was performed using the PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases for studies published between 1996 and 2024. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 29), and a p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Seven studies met the final inclusion criteria, with 5 retrospective cohort studies, 1 prospective cohort study, and 1 prospective randomized controlled trial. Egger's regression test (intercept = -0.61, p = 0.76) and Begg's rank correlation test (τ = 0.00, p = 1.00) revealed no significant evidence of publication bias. The overall log odds ratio for achieving SFR favoured the U-PCNL group, with an estimated log OR = -0.38 (95% CI: from -0.87 to 0.10; p = 0.12), although this difference did not reach statistical significance. There was no statistically significant difference for high-grade complications; the log odds ratio was 0.03 (95% CI: from -0.57 to 0.63, p = 0.91). Conclusions: Based on low-certainty evidence, synchronous B-PCNL may be considered a selective option at experienced centres.
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.