Scolaris Content Display Scolaris Content Display

Flow chart of study selection procedure
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 1

Flow chart of study selection procedure

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
Figuras y tablas -
Figure 2

Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.

Comparison 1 ESWL versus PCNL, Outcome 1 Success of treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.1

Comparison 1 ESWL versus PCNL, Outcome 1 Success of treatment.

Comparison 1 ESWL versus PCNL, Outcome 2 Re‐treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.2

Comparison 1 ESWL versus PCNL, Outcome 2 Re‐treatment.

Comparison 1 ESWL versus PCNL, Outcome 3 Auxiliary procedures.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.3

Comparison 1 ESWL versus PCNL, Outcome 3 Auxiliary procedures.

Comparison 1 ESWL versus PCNL, Outcome 4 Procedural and operating time.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.4

Comparison 1 ESWL versus PCNL, Outcome 4 Procedural and operating time.

Comparison 1 ESWL versus PCNL, Outcome 5 Hospital stay.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 1.5

Comparison 1 ESWL versus PCNL, Outcome 5 Hospital stay.

Comparison 2 ESWL versus RIRS, Outcome 1 Success of treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.1

Comparison 2 ESWL versus RIRS, Outcome 1 Success of treatment.

Comparison 2 ESWL versus RIRS, Outcome 2 Re‐treatment.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.2

Comparison 2 ESWL versus RIRS, Outcome 2 Re‐treatment.

Comparison 2 ESWL versus RIRS, Outcome 3 Procedural and operating time.
Figuras y tablas -
Analysis 2.3

Comparison 2 ESWL versus RIRS, Outcome 3 Procedural and operating time.

Comparison 1. ESWL versus PCNL

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Success of treatment Show forest plot

4

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

1.1 Success at 1 week

1

32

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.18 [0.05, 0.62]

1.2 Success at 4 weeks

1

40

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.77 [0.61, 0.98]

1.3 Success at 3 months

3

201

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.46 [0.35, 0.62]

1.4 Success at 1 year

2

107

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.72 [0.54, 0.95]

1.5 Success at 3 months according to stone size (1‐10 mm)

1

39

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.64 [0.45, 0.90]

1.6 Success at 3 months according to stone size (10‐20 mm)

2

86

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.30 [0.18, 0.52]

1.7 Success at 3 months according to stone size (21‐30 mm)

2

46

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.34 [0.16, 0.72]

1.8 Success of treating lower pole stones ≤ 20 mm

2

155

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.49 [0.36, 0.67]

2 Re‐treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

2.1 Overall re‐treatment

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.2 Re‐treatment according to stone size (1‐10 mm)

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.3 Re‐treatment according to stone size (11‐20 mm)

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2.4 Re‐treatment according to stone size (21‐30 mm)

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3 Auxiliary procedures Show forest plot

2

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Subtotals only

3.1 Overall auxiliary procedures

2

184

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

8.33 [1.58, 44.02]

3.2 Auxiliary procedures according to stone size (1‐10 mm)

1

42

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

6.39 [0.35, 116.57]

3.3 Auxiliary procedures according to stone size (11‐20 mm)

1

62

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

6.15 [0.80, 47.07]

3.4 Auxiliary procedures according to stone size (21‐30 mm)

1

20

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

3.5 Auxiliary procedures of lower pole stones (stone size ≤ 20 mm)

2

166

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

8.24 [1.56, 43.40]

4 Procedural and operating time Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

5 Hospital stay Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 1. ESWL versus PCNL
Comparison 2. ESWL versus RIRS

Outcome or subgroup title

No. of studies

No. of participants

Statistical method

Effect size

1 Success of treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

1.1 Success at 3 months

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

0.0 [0.0, 0.0]

2 Re‐treatment Show forest plot

1

Risk Ratio (M‐H, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

3 Procedural and operating time Show forest plot

1

Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI)

Totals not selected

Figuras y tablas -
Comparison 2. ESWL versus RIRS