40
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of stone-free rates following shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objectives

          To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing stone-free rates following retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), and percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) treatments of renal stones.

          Materials and methods

          Clinical trials comparing RIRS, SWL, and PCNL for treatment of renal stones were identified from electronic databases. Stone-free rates for the procedures were compared by qualitative and quantitative syntheses (meta-analyses). Outcome variables are shown as risk ratios (ORs) with 95% credible intervals (CIs).

          Results

          A total of 35 studies were included in this network meta-analysis of success and stone-free rates following three different treatments of renal stones. Six studies compared PCNL versus SWL, ten studies compared PCNL versus RIRS, fourteen studies compared RIRS versus SWL, and five studies compared PCNL, SWL, and RIRS. The quality scores within subscales were relatively low-risk. Network meta-analyses indicated that stone-free rates of RIRS (OR 0.38; 95% CI 0.22–0.64) and SWL (OR 0.12; 95% CI 0.067–0.19) were lower than that of PCNL. In addition, stone-free rate of SWL was lower than that of RIRS (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.20–0.47). Stone free rate of PCNL was also superior to RIRS in subgroup analyses including ≥ 2 cm stone (OR 4.680; 95% CI 2.873–8.106), lower pole stone (OR 1.984; 95% CI 1.043–2.849), and randomized studies (OR 2.219; 95% CI 1.348–4.009). In rank-probability test, PCNL was ranked as No. 1 and SWL was ranked as No. 3.

          Conclusions

          PCNL showed the highest success and stone-free rate in the surgical treatment of renal stones. In contrast, SWL had the lowest success and stone-free rate.

          Related collections

          Most cited references68

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Meta-analysis in clinical research.

          Meta-analysis is the process of combining study results that can be used to draw conclusions about therapeutic effectiveness or to plan new studies. We review important design and statistical issues of this process. The design issues include protocol development, objectives, literature search, publication bias, measures of study outcomes, and quality of the data. The statistical issues include consistency (homogeneity) of study outcomes, and techniques for pooling results from several studies. Guidelines are provided to assess the quality of meta-analyses based on our discussion of the design and statistical issues. Limitations and areas for further development of this approach are discussed; researchers should come to a general agreement on how to conduct meta-analysis. As an explicit strategy for summarizing results, meta-analysis may help clinicians and researchers better understand the findings of clinical studies.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Percutaneous pyelolithotomy. A new extraction technique.

            Recurrent renal calculous disease is often troublesome to treat because of technical difficulties associated with reoperation. Attempts to dissolve the stones by irrigation with various solutions has not had much success. A new extraction technique has therefore been devised whereby the stones can be removed through a percutaneous nephrostomy umder radiological control. Three cases are described.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A note on graphical presentation of estimated odds ratios from several clinical trials.

              To display a number of estimates of a parameter obtained from different studies it is common practice to plot a sequence of confidence intervals. This can be useful but is often unsatisfactory. An alternative display is suggested which represents intervals as points on a bivariate graph, and which has advantages. When the data are estimates of odds ratios from studies with a binary response, it is argued that for either type of plot, a log scale should be used rather than a linear scale.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Project administrationRole: Resources
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: ValidationRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: Resources
                Role: Formal analysisRole: Project administrationRole: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: Validation
                Role: Data curationRole: MethodologyRole: SoftwareRole: Visualization
                Role: ResourcesRole: SoftwareRole: SupervisionRole: ValidationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                21 February 2019
                2019
                : 14
                : 2
                : e0211316
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Urology, Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
                [2 ] Department of Urology, Inha University School of Medicine, Incheon, Korea
                [3 ] Department of Urology, Gangnam Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
                [4 ] Department of Urology, Kwangju Christian Hospital, Gwangju, Korea
                [5 ] Department of Urology, Yongin Severance Hospital, Yonsei University Health System, Yongin, Korea
                [6 ] Department of Urology, Severance Check-Up, Yonsei University Health System, Seoul, Korea
                [7 ] Department of Nursing Science, Gachon University College of Nursing, Incheon, Korea
                All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhopal, INDIA
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8545-5797
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3470-1767
                Article
                PONE-D-17-41102
                10.1371/journal.pone.0211316
                6383992
                30789937
                54a347e5-abc1-4f37-a9d2-d3a2c29f057f
                © 2019 Chung et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 24 November 2017
                : 13 January 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 11, Tables: 3, Pages: 24
                Funding
                Funded by: Yonsei University College of Medicine (KR)
                Award ID: 6-2016-0119
                Award Recipient :
                This study was supported by a faculty research grant from the Yonsei University College of Medicine (6-2016-0119) to Dr. Joo Yong Lee.The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Mathematical and Statistical Techniques
                Statistical Methods
                Metaanalysis
                Physical Sciences
                Mathematics
                Statistics
                Statistical Methods
                Metaanalysis
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Surgical and Invasive Medical Procedures
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Bioassays and Physiological Analysis
                Renal Analysis
                Science Policy
                Research Integrity
                Publication Ethics
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Assessment
                Systematic Reviews
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Anatomy
                Renal System
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Anatomy
                Renal System
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Anatomy
                Musculoskeletal System
                Pelvis
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Anatomy
                Musculoskeletal System
                Pelvis
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Policy
                Treatment Guidelines
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within paper and its Supporting Information files.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content998

                Cited by36

                Most referenced authors1,417