Treatment modalities for small-sized urolithiases and their impact on health-related quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is often reduced in patients with urolithiasis. The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review to describe impact on HRQoL based on different modalities of treatment for small urolithiases with a diameter smaller or equal to 10 mm. METHODS: Electronic databases were searched with no language or date restrictions to identify studies which were included if they reported: adult patients (≥18 years old), renal or ureteral stone(s) confirmed on imagery, validated reporting of HRQoL, stone diameter equal or smaller than 10 mm undergoing active surveillance, medical expulsive therapy (MET), shockwave lithotripsy (SWL), or ureteroscopy (URS). RESULTS: Of 672 citations, nine articles were eligible. Five studies (all ureteral) reported HRQoL according to medical stone management. Three of them found that HRQoL in MET patients was better than in active surveillance patients and two studies found no difference in HRQoL between MET and active surveillance groups. Four studies (three ureteral, one renal) reported HRQoL according to surgical stone management. Of the ureteral stone studies, two reported better HRQoL in URS patients than in SWL patients, while one study found no difference between URS and SWL groups. In the renal stone study, SWL patients had better HRQoL than URS patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with urinary stones 10 mm or smaller have better HRQoL when treated with MET vs. active surveillance, when treated with SWL vs. URS for renal stones, and when treated with URS vs. SWL for ureteral stones. There is an important need for more studies on this topic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".