ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Real-world effectiveness of total flavonoids from
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
Background: Ureteral stones frequently lead to urinary tract obstruction, and medical expulsive therapy (MET) continues to serve as a mainstay of non-invasive management. Total flavonoids from Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study including 341 outpatients diagnosed with unilateral ureteral stones between January and December 2024. Patients receiving TFDS were classified as the study group (n = 194), while those not receiving TFDS served as controls (n = 147). We used 1:1 propensity score matching to ensure comparable baseline profiles, yielding 142 matched pairs. The primary outcomes were stone expulsion time and expulsion rate within 30 days. Subgroup analyses were performed according to stone size and location. Results: After PSM, all baseline variables were well balanced between the two groups. Patients treated with TFDS experienced a shorter average duration to stone passage than controls (9.06 vs. 12.24 days, p = 0.003). Subgroup analyses showed that TFDS shortened expulsion time in both small (<5 mm) and larger (five to nine mm) stones, as well as across different ureteral locations, with the most marked benefit observed in upper ureteral stones. The overall stone expulsion rate was higher in the TFDS group than in controls (63.4% vs. 47.9%, p = 0.09), with significant improvement in stones 5-9 mm (p = 0.021) and in middle-to-lower ureteral stones (p = 0.011). No adverse drug reactions were reported. Conclusion: After adjusting for baseline differences using PSM, TFDS significantly shortened stone expulsion time and improved expulsion rates, particularly for larger and distally located ureteral stones. TFDS appears to be a safe and effective adjunct to MET in the conservative management of ureteral stones.
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.