SynthesisWorld journal of urology2026
Percussion, diuresis, and inversion therapy can facilitate lower renal pole stone passage after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and retrograde intrarenal surgery? 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePatients with lower pole stones (LPS) present a significant challenge for urologists because of the increased likelihood of residual fragments and recurrence following extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS). Although percussion, diuresis, and inversion (PDI) therapy has demonstrated potential for enhancing the stone-free rate (SFR) in these patients, its application remains a topic of debate. Consequently, our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate SFR outcomes when comparing PDI therapy with observation in patients with LPS. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. We excluded conference abstracts, non-RCT trials, and studies that used the Lithecbole device. The main outcome was SFR, which was defined per study as no visible stone or residual fragments ≤ 2-4 mm. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB-2 tool and statistical analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.4.1 (Cochrane Collaboration).
resultsFive RCTs comprising a total of 394 patients with LPS were included in this meta-analysis. Of these, 208 (52.7%) underwent PDI therapy; within the PDI group, 60 (28.8%) underwent RIRS and 148 (71.1%) underwent ESWL. The follow-up period ranged from 2 weeks to 3 months. Three studies reported the mean infundibular-pelvic angle and infundibular length; there was no significant difference between PDI and control (25.9 vs. 24.8 mm; p = 0.83) and (69.1 vs. 69.9 degrees; p = 0.20), respectively. The meta-analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in SFR (OR 3.81; 95% CI 2.40, 6.06; p < 0.00001; I²=0%; Fig. 2). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the overall complication rate between groups (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.04, 3.56; p = 0.38; I²=0%; Fig. 3). No study reported complications of Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher.
conclusionsIn conclusion, PDI therapy after ESWL or RIRS was associated with a higher short-term SFR in patients with LPS compared with observation. These findings suggest a potential benefit of PDI as an adjunctive strategy for patients with LPS.
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.