MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133501652 · doi:10.1080/2090598x.2021.1885948

Drug-delivering devices in the urinary tract: A systematic review

2021· review· en· W3133501652 on OpenAlexaff
Panagiotis Kallidonis, Constantinos Adamou, Sara Villarrova Castillo, Despοina Liourdi, Evangelos Liatsikos, Dirk Lange

Bibliographic record

VenueArab Journal of Urology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineUrologyDrugSystematic reviewKetorolacPharmacologyMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective : To systematically review the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) and drug-coated balloons (DCB) in urology.Materials and Methods The systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. PubMed, Scopus, Web of science and Cochrane Library online databases were searched in February 2019. Experimental and clinical studies, which included the placement of a DES or dilatation with DCB for investigating their potential use in the urinary tract for the management of ureteric or urethral pathologies, were included. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the current use of DES and DCB in urology.Results A total of 29 articles were included in the systematic review. A total of 10 studies tested DES or DCB containing anti-proliferative agents (paclitaxel, zotarolimus, sirolimus, halofugione). Antibiotic agent-containing DES were tested in nine studies (triclosan, quinolones, teicoplanin, nitrofurantoin, silver sulfadiazine). A total of eight studies investigated the release of anti-inflammatory agents by DES (ketorolac, indomethacin, EW-7197). Another group studied heparin-eluting stents.Conclusion Despite the inconclusive outcomes of the three randomised controlled trials, drug-coated/eluting devices constitute a promising field in urology for the prevention of complications associated with conventional stents including pain and encrustation. Pre-clinical in vitro and in vivo studies have shown their ability to mitigate inflammation, inhibit re-stenosis and improve pain as indicated by declined use of anti-inflammatory drugs.Abbreviations: DES: drug-eluting stents; DCB: drug-coated balloons; DCS: drug-coated stents; HF: halofungione; MCP-1: monocyte chemoattractant protein 1; PRISMA, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; PTCA: percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty; RANTES: regulated on activation, normal T-cell expressed and secreted; RCT: randomised controlled trial; USSQ, Ureteric Stent Symptoms Questionaire.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.009
Bibliometrics0.0130.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArab Journal of UrologySame topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207