The effects of pretreatment oral hydration on extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We sought to investigate the effects of pretreatment oral hydration on the outcomes of extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy (ESWL). METHODS: Patients who underwent ESWL for a single, radio-opaque, renal or proximal ureteric calculus ≤2 cm in size were randomized into two groups. The oral hydration group (OHG) was administered 600 ml of water before ESWL, while the control group (CG) was not. The urine was held during ESWL to create a full bladder-induced hydronephrosis. Both groups received the same ESWL protocol at four-week intervals and a maximum of three sessions. The primary outcome was stone-free rate (SFR) at 12 weeks and the secondary outcomes were the total number of shockwaves and the number of ESWL sessions. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients completed the study - 77 patients in each group; both groups were comparable in demographic data and stone characteristics. The SFR was 84.4% in the OHG and 68.8% in the CG group (p=0.036). Stone fragmentation in the OHG was significantly higher than in the CG at 75.3% vs. 58.4% (p=0.040). The OHG had more cases of artificial hydronephrosis (55.8% vs. 27.3%, p=0.001) and higher urine volume (375 [148] ml vs. 230 [110] ml, p<0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in the total number of shockwaves and the number of ESWL sessions. The auxiliary procedures in the OHG were less than in the CG (15.6% vs. 31.2%, p=0.049). CONCLUSIONS: Pretreatment oral hydration, together with holding urine during ESWL, has increased stone disintegration and SFR. This simple and safe technique improves the ESWL outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".