MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412768037 · doi:10.1080/20905998.2025.2532196

Efficacy of alpha-blockers in medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials between 2010 and 2025

2025· review· en· W4412768037 on OpenAlex
Mohammed Marzouq Almaghthawi, Eman A Alotaibi, Mohammed Saad Alotaibi, Ruba Al-Omari, Yazeed Dakhel Alsulami, Manar Ali Alahamdi, Salem Ibrahim S Aljaddua, Wijdan Ateeq Allah Alruhaili, Eyad Mohammed Hijazi, Abdullah Sulaiman Alkharboosh, Oroub Abdulaziz Almurshed, Altaf Al-Shammari

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueArab Journal of Urology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsInnovation Cluster (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialTamsulosinMedical therapySystematic reviewMEDLINEUrologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Alpha-blockers are widely used in medical expulsive therapy (MET) for ureteral stones; however, the current evidence regarding their comparative effectiveness remains inconsistent. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of different alpha-blockers in facilitating ureteral stone passage and identify factors influencing treatment outcomes. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2010 and 2025. We searched multiple databases for studies comparing alpha-blockers with control interventions or other alpha-blockers for ureteral stones ≤10 mm. Primary outcome was stone expulsion rate; secondary outcomes included time to expulsion, pain episodes, analgesic use, and adverse events. We performed subgroup analyses by alpha-blocker type, stone size, location, and treatment duration. Network meta-analysis assessed comparative effectiveness between agents. Results: Twenty-nine RCTs with a total of 4,256 patients were included. Alpha-blockers significantly increased stone expulsion rates compared to controls (70.9% vs. 56.5%; RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.20-1.32; Number Needed to Treat (NNT) = 7) and reduced expulsion time by approximately three-days. Efficacy was greatest for distal ureteral stones (RR 1.52; Number Needed to Treat (NNT) = 4) and stones 5-10 mm (RR 1.35; NNT = 6). Network meta-analysis revealed efficacy ranking favoring at first terazosin, followed by doxazosin then, silodosin then, tamsulosin then, alfuzosin and last the least effective was naftopidil. Alpha-blockers significantly reduced pain episodes and analgesic requirements. Adverse events were infrequent (Number Needed to Harm (NNH) = 38), with retrograde ejaculation being most common with silodosin. Conclusion: Alpha-blockers significantly improve the stone expulsion rates and reduce expulsion time, especially for distal ureteral stones 5-10 mm in size. While tamsulosin remains the most studied agent, our network meta-analysis suggests terazosin and doxazosin may offer superior efficacy. The favorable risk-benefit profile supports routine use of alpha-blockers for appropriately selected patients with ureteral stones.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0850.012
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.339 · 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