Trial reportWorld journal of urology2026
Tolerability of 4.7Fr versus 6Fr ureteral stents following intracorporeal lithotripsy: a single center, patient- and assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in World journal of urology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Stone location may separate the benefit and harm of 4.7Fr ureteral stents.World journal of urology · 2026Article
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
objectivesUreteral stents are routinely placed following intracorporeal lithotripsy but are frequently associated with significant morbidity. We aimed to evaluate the tolerability of 4.7Fr versus 6Fr stents in a single center, patient- and assessor-blinded randomized controlled trial. MATERIALS AND
methodsOf 132 eligible patients, 124 undergoing elective ureterorenoscopy for urolithiasis were randomized 1:1 to receive a 6Fr (n = 63) or 4.7Fr (n = 61) PTFE double-J stent, left in situ for 3 weeks. Accounting for loss to follow-up, 119 participants (4.7Fr, n = 57; 6Fr, n = 62) were analyzed. The primary endpoint was postoperative ureteral stent tolerability, assessed using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) and Ureteral Stent Symptom Questionnaire (USSQ), while complications were graded using the Modified Clavien-Dindo Classification.
resultsBoth groups had comparable baseline demographics and similar stone-free rates. At 3 weeks, overall mean IPSS scores were comparable (MD = - 0.7, 95% CI: - 2 to 1, p = 0.356). However, the 4.7Fr group reported significantly better overall USSQ scores than the 6Fr group (73 ± 16 vs. 80 ± 17; MD = - 7, 95% CI: - 13 to - 1.5, p = 0.014). Overall, 84% of patients were complication-free. Grade 3 complications (e.g., stent dislodgment) were more frequent in the 4.7Fr group (8.8% vs. 3.2%; RR = 2.6, 95% CI: 0.5 to 13, p = 0.232).
conclusionsSmaller 4.7Fr stents significantly reduce urinary symptoms and improve general health compared to standard 6Fr stents, albeit with a slightly elevated risk of early stent dislodgment.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: CTRI/2022/09/045724.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42678562What 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.