ArticleUrolithiasis2026
Suction mini-PCNL versus standard PCNL for 2-4 cm renal stones: a prospective cohort analysis of average effects, heterogeneity, and policy value.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared 18Fr suction mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) with standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy (sPCNL) for 2-4 cm renal stones in a prospective, single-center, non-randomized cohort and separated three questions: population-average effects, treatment-effect heterogeneity, and the value of acting on that heterogeneity. Among 900 patients, 450 underwent each procedure. Targeted maximum likelihood estimation with cross-validated Super Learner estimated outcome-specific average effects. A Net Clinical Utility (NCU) composite was analyzed with doubly robust estimation, an honest causal forest, and fivefold cross-fitted policy evaluation. SMP-minus-sPCNL differences were +2.7 percentage points for 1-day stone-free rate (95% CI - 1.85 to 6.20), + 1.69 percentage points for 1-month stone-free rate (- 1.84 to 5.23), - 1.09 percentage points for 24-hour pain (- 1.17 to - 1.01), - 1.23 g/L for hemoglobin drop (- 1.61 to - 0.86), and - 0.56 days for hospitalization (- 0.69 to - 0.42). Fever was inconclusive (- 3.36% points; -7.01 to 0.29). The population-average NCU effect was + 2.70 points (- 0.84 to 6.23; P = 0.135). Differential calibration did not support reliable heterogeneity (P = 0.192), and a depth-2 policy tree did not outperform the higher-valued fixed all-SMP strategy (+ 1.13 NCU; -1.10 to 3.37; P = 0.321). Thus, outcome-specific recovery associations favored SMP, but neither global NCU superiority nor a validated individualized strategy was established. These observational findings require external prospective validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42709203What 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.