ArticleUrolithiasis2026
Contemporary practice patterns of shock wave lithotripsy in the era of endourology: an international FUTURE survey.
Article in Urolithiasis, 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
The relative use of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) has declined with the expansion of endourological techniques, although SWL remains widely available. Contemporary international data on SWL utilization, technical delivery, operator models, outcome assessment, and artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools are limited. This study evaluated current SWL practice patterns among urologists involved in stone disease management. A cross-sectional web-based survey was developed by the Kidney Stones Pillar of the FUTURE collaborative group and distributed through the Endourological Society network and X platform between February and April 2026. The questionnaire assessed SWL utilization, decision-making, technical parameters, operator profile, follow-up, outcome definitions, and AI use. Results were summarized using item-level denominators. Exploratory subgroup analyses compared respondents with higher (> 15%) versus lower/no (≤ 15%) SWL utilization. A total of 156 responses from 36 countries were analyzed. Overall, 121/156 (77.6%) respondents used SWL in ≤ 15% of stone cases, including 26/156 (16.7%) who did not currently use SWL. Among 144 respondents for whom the temporal-trend question was applicable, 89/144 (61.8%) perceived a decrease in SWL use over the preceding three years. Higher SWL utilization was associated with in-house SWL availability [30/35 (85.7%) vs. 59/121 (48.8%), p < 0.001]. Electromagnetic lithotripters were most common [66/129 (51.2%)], and 100/126 (79.4%) respondents reported equipment aged ≥ 6 years. AI access remained limited, with 107/130 (82.3%) reporting no access and 11/130 (8.5%) reporting clinical use. Among respondents to this international survey, SWL was used in a minority of stone cases and was commonly perceived to have decreased over the preceding three years. Considerable variability was observed in patient selection, treatment delivery, operator models, training, and outcome assessment, while access to AI-based tools remained limited.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42616040What 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.