MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985167153 · doi:10.1089/end.2008.0216

Medical Expulsive Therapy as an Adjunct to Improve Shockwave Lithotripsy Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2009· review· en· W1985167153 on OpenAlexaff
Trevor Schuler, Rohan Shahani, R. John D’A. Honey, Kenneth T. Pace

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Endourology · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialTamsulosinConfidence intervalLithotripsySurgerySubgroup analysisRelative riskMEDLINEUrologyInternal medicineAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Modern shockwave lithotripsy (SWL) is associated with inferior results compared with the original Dornier HM3. To enhance SWL outcomes, improved patient selection based on radiographic features and modulation of shockwave delivery rate have been used. A growing body of evidence demonstrates the positive effect of medical expulsive therapy (MET) to improve spontaneous passage of urinary calculi. The purpose of this review is to tabulate the current available data that examine the addition of MET to SWL to enhance outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE was searched with a strategy developed in conjunction with a medical librarian. Trials were included if patients were randomized to receive either a medical expulsive agent or placebo or standard therapy after SWL. Study quality was assessed according to the Cochrane Renal Group criteria. The data were analyzed using RevMan meta-analysis software. Subgroup analysis was performed with respect to MET agent used, stone size, and duration of follow-up. RESULTS: Four randomized trials were identified. MET agents varied, with two trials using tamsulosin, one using nifedipine, and a single trial using Phyllanthus niruri extract. Two trials included patients with renal calculi, one had patients with ureteral calculi, and the fourth included patients with both ureteral and renal calculi. The pool results of the four trials included 212 patients who received MET and 206 who received placebo. The absolute risk difference of a successful outcome after SWL with the addition of MET was significantly superior to control at 17% (95% confidence interval [CI] 9%-24%); means six patients need to be treated with MET to prevent a single unsuccessful SWL of six (95% CI 4-11). The effect of MET post-SWL was even more pronounced for stones larger than 10 mm with an absolute risk difference of 26% (95% CI, 9%-43%). CONCLUSIONS: MET post-SWL results in a significant increase in successful treatment outcomes. Further powered, randomized studies are encouraged.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0230.007
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.340 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations45
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of EndourologySame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207