The Effect of Tamsulosin in the Medical Treatment of Distal Ureteral Stones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Renal stones are common disorders that affect approximately 5% to 10% of the population and the incidence of renal stones is rising. Treatment of ureteral stones is an important part of urologists and minimally invasive procedures such as ESWL and ureteroscopy effectiveness has been proven in various studies. However, these methods are not completely safe and are expensive and can be complicated. Purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of tamsulosin in the medical treatment of distal ureteral stones. PATIENTS & METHODS: A total of 96 patients with distal ureteral stones or UVj are randomly divided into two study group (50 patients) and control group (46 patients). Patients in the control group allowed to freely consuming fluids (hydration) and indomethacin 100 mg PRN. Study group in addition to indomethacin and daily analgesic 0.4 mg tamsulosin was administered. All subjects in terms of analgesic dose, duration of expulsion and expulsion were studied. RESULTS: Spontaneous expulsion of stone was occurred in 62.5% (30 patients out of 46) of control group patients and 82% (41 patients out of 50) that there was no significant difference (P>0.05). Average time to fix the stone in control group 4.7 ± 8.03 days (range 2 to 28 days) and in the study group, 3.7 ± 5.70 days (range 1 to 23 days) is significantly different (P>0.05). The average amount of analgesic consumption in the control group was 2.3 ± 4.31 and in the study group was 1.48 ± 2.15 that showed significant differences (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: In this study, although the addition of tamsulosin to conservative treatment of distal ureteral stones in the distal ureteral stone expulsion showed no significant difference between the two groups, but the reduction in the duration of expulsion, reduce pain and reduce the need for analgesic has been beneficial.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".