↓ Skip to main content

Tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an update meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Urology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
64 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Tubeless versus standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy: an update meta-analysis
Published in
BMC Urology, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12894-017-0295-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yang Xun, Qing Wang, Henglong Hu, Yuchao Lu, Jiaqiao Zhang, Baolong Qin, Yudi Geng, Shaogang Wang

Abstract

To update a previously published systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL). A systematic literature search of EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library was performed to confirm relevant studies. The scientific literature was screened in accordance with the predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. After quality assessment and data extraction from the eligible studies, a meta-analysis was conducted using Stata SE 12.0. Fourteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1148 patients were included. Combined results demonstrated that tubeless PCNL was significantly associated with shorter operative time (weighted mean difference [WMD], -3.79 min; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.73 to -0.85; P = 0.012; I(2) = 53.8%), shorter hospital stay (WMD, -1.27 days; 95% CI, -1.65 to -0.90; P < 0.001; I(2) = 98.7%), faster time to return to normal activity (WMD, -4.24 days; 95% CI, -5.76 to -2.71; P < 0.001; I(2) = 97.5%), lower postoperative pain scores (WMD, -16.55 mm; 95% CI, -21.60 to -11.50; P < 0.001; I(2) = 95.7%), less postoperative analgesia requirements (standard mean difference, -1.09 mg; 95% CI, -1.35 to -0.84; P < 0.001; I(2) = 46.8%), and lower urine leakage (Relative risk [RR], 0.30; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.59; P = 0.001; I(2) = 41.2%). There were no significant differences in postoperative hemoglobin reduction (WMD, -0.02 g/dL; 95% CI, -0.04 to 0.01; P = 0.172; I(2) = 41.5%), stone-free rate (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.05; P = 0.776; I(2) = 0.0%), postoperative fever rate (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.93; P = 0.867; I(2) = 0.0%), or blood transfusion rate (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.70; P = 0.538; I(2) = 0.0%). The results of subgroup analysis were consistent with the overall findings. The sensitivity analysis indicated that most results remained constant when total tubeless or partial tubeless or mini-PCNL studies were excluded respectively. Tubeless PCNL is an available and safe option in carefully evaluated and selected patients. It is significantly associated with the advantages of shorter hospital stay, shorter time to return to normal activity, lower postoperative pain scores, less analgesia requirement, and reduced urine leakage.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 7 15%
Student > Master 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Researcher 3 6%
Other 6 13%
Unknown 17 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Computer Science 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 21 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 December 2017.
All research outputs
#18,836,571
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from BMC Urology
#532
of 765 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#250,930
of 326,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Urology
#10
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 765 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,940 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.