Supine versus prone pediatric percutaneous nephrolithotomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) is the treatment of choice for pediatric nephrolithiasis more than 20 mm. Prone position was the preferred position for decades. Recently, supine position has gained more interest. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PCNL in supine versus prone position in pediatric population. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was performed till 28 February 2024. The study included comparative studies comparing both positions in children that were written in English. A total of three randomized studies and three retrospective studies were included with a total number of 290 patients. Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was used for quality assessment, while Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used for non-randomized controlled trials. The meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager software. Numerical data were analyzed using standardized mean difference (SMD), while the risk ratio was used for analysis of categorical data. Fixed or random effects models were used according to heterogeneity. There were statistically insignificant differences between both groups for stone-free rate (RR 1.08, 95% CI [0.98–1.18], p = 0.11) and overall complications (RR 0.93, 95% CI [0.59–1.47], p = 0.76). Operation time was significantly shorter in supine group (SMD −0.99, 95% CI [−1.67 to −0.30], p = 0.005). Therefore, comparable efficacy and safety outcomes were proved between both supine and prone positions for PCNL in pediatrics.
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 | 0.010 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".