For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
7
views
35
references
 Top references
cited by
7
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      623
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison Between Single-Use Flexible Ureteroscope and Reusable Flexible Ureteroscope for Upper Urinary Calculi: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          Objective: This article explores the differences in the effectiveness and safety of the treatment of the upper urinary calculi between single-use flexible ureteroscope (su-fURS) and reusable flexible ureteroscope (ru-fURS).

          Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus database, and CNKI databases within a period from the date of database establishment to November 2020. Stata 16 was used for calculation and statistical analyses.

          Results: A total of 1,020 patients were included in the seven studies. The statistical differences were only found in the Clavien–Dindo grade II postoperative complication [odds ratio (OR) 0.47; 95% CI 0.23–0.98; p = 0.04]. No significant statistical differences were observed in operative time (OT), estimated blood loss (EBL), length of hospital stay (LOS), and stone-free rate (SFR).

          Conclusion: Our meta-analysis results demonstrate that su-fURS, compared with ru-fURS, has similar effectiveness and better security for treating upper urinary calculi.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          Matthew J L Page, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick Bossuyt … (2024)
          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
          Article 0 comments Cited 12712 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

            Jonathan A C Sterne, Jelena Savović, Matthew J L Page … (2022)
            Article 0 comments Cited 5539 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses.

              Andreas Stang (2010)
              Article 0 comments Cited 3813 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Front Surg
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Front Surg
                Journal ID (publisher-id): Front. Surg.
                Title: Frontiers in Surgery
                Publisher: Frontiers Media S.A.
                ISSN (Electronic): 2296-875X
                Publication date (Electronic): 13 October 2021
                Publication date Collection: 2021
                Volume: 8
                Electronic Location Identifier: 691170
                Affiliations
                [1] 1Department of Urology, Nanchong Central Hospital, The Second Clinical Medical College, North Sichuan Medical College (University) , Nanchong, China
                [2] 2West China School of Medicine, Sichuan University , Chengdu, China
                [3] 3Department of Urology, The Affiliated Hospital of Medical College, North Sichuan Medical College (University) , Nanchong, China
                Author notes

                Edited by: Khurshid Ghani, University of Michigan, United States

                Reviewed by: Andrey O. Morozov, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Russia; Jamsheed Bahaee, Cleveland Clinic Akron General, United States; Cao Dehong, Sichuan University, China

                *Correspondence: Yunxiang Li liyunxiang369@ 123456126.com

                This article was submitted to Genitourinary Surgery, a section of the journal Frontiers in Surgery

                †These authors have contributed equally to this work

                Article
                DOI: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.691170
                PMC ID: 8548426
                PubMed ID: 34722620
                SO-VID: 1be6c128-0319-463b-bbbc-fbd45892efd8
                Copyright © Copyright © 2021 Meng, Peng, Li, Li, Li and Wu.
                License:

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

                History
                Date received : 05 April 2021
                Date accepted : 07 September 2021
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 2, Equations: 0, References: 35, Pages: 8, Words: 4506
                Categories
                Subject: Surgery
                Subject: Original Research

                Keywords: upper urinary calculi,flexible ureteroscope,single-use,reusable,meta-analysis
                Data availability:
                Keywords: upper urinary calculi, flexible ureteroscope, single-use, reusable, meta-analysis

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content623

                See all similar

                Cited by7

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,185

                See all reference authors