Cochrane · systematic review · CD010784
Medical and surgical interventions for the treatment of urinary stones in children
Barreto, L, Jung, JH, Abdelrahim, A, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
28
current version
GRADE rated
24
No studies
4
Included studies
NR
No studies 4 · 14.3%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 16 · 57.1%Low 4 · 14.3%Moderate 4 · 14.3%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Current version onlyShock wave lithotripsy versus dissolution therapy for renal stones
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Stone‐free rate Shock wave lithotripsy vs dissolution therapy | RR 1.13 [0.9, 1.41] | 1 study · 87 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Serious adverse events or complications of treatment Shock wave lithotripsy vs dissolution therapy | RR 1.23 [0.08, 19.05] | 1 study · 87 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Secondary procedures for residual fragments Shock wave lithotripsy vs dissolution therapy | RR 0.66 [0.29, 1.5] | 1 study · 87 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hospital stay — not reported Shock wave lithotripsy vs dissolution therapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Slow shock wave lithotripsy versus rapid shock wave lithotripsy for renal stones
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Stone‐free rate Slow shock wave lithotripsy vs rapid shock wave lithotripsy | RR 2.25 [1.16, 4.36] | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Serious adverse events or complications of treatment Slow shock wave lithotripsy vs rapid shock wave lithotripsy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Secondary procedures Slow shock wave lithotripsy vs rapid shock wave lithotripsy | RR 0.38 [0.11, 1.28] | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hospital stay — not reported Slow shock wave lithotripsy vs rapid shock wave lithotripsy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium laser or pneumatic lithotripsy for renal and distal ureteric stones
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Stone‐free rate Shock wave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopy with holmium laser or pneumatic lithotripsy | RR 0.62 [0.43, 0.88] | 3 studies · 153 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Serious adverse events or complications of treatment Shock wave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopy with holmium laser or pneumatic lithotripsy | RR 0.56 [0.12, 2.58] | 3 studies · 153 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Second procedures Shock wave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopy with holmium laser or pneumatic lithotripsy | RR 3.47 [1.32, 9.15] | 3 studies · 131 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hospital stay Shock wave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopy with holmium laser or pneumatic lithotripsy | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 122 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Shock wave lithotripsy versus mini‐percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Stone‐free rate Shock wave lithotripsy vs mini‐percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | RR 0.88 [0.8, 0.97] | 1 study · 212 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Serious adverse events or complications of treatment Shock wave lithotripsy vs mini‐percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | RR 0.13 [0.02, 0.98] | 1 study · 212 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Secondary procedures Shock wave lithotripsy vs mini‐percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | RR 2.5 [1.01, 6.2] | 1 study · 212 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hospital stay Shock wave lithotripsy vs mini‐percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 212 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Stone‐free rate Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy vs tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | RR 1.16 [0.88, 1.53] | 1 study · 23 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Serious adverse events or complications of treatments Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy vs tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | RR 0.42 [0.02, 9.43] | 1 study · 23 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Secondary procedures Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy vs tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | RR 0.42 [0.02, 9.43] | 1 study · 23 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hospital stay Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy vs tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 23 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless mini‐percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Stone‐free rate Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy vs tubeless mini‐percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | RR 1.03 [0.93, 1.14] | 1 study · 70 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Serious adverse events or complications of treatment — not reported Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy vs tubeless mini‐percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Secondary procedures Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy vs tubeless mini‐percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 70 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hospital stay Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy vs tubeless mini‐percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 70 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Alpha‐blockers versus placebo with/without analgesics
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Stone‐free rate Alpha‐blockers vs placebo with/without analgesics | RR 1.34 [1.16, 1.54] | 6 studies · 335 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Serious adverse events or complications of treatment Alpha‐blockers vs placebo with/without analgesics | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 63 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Secondary procedures for residual fragments Alpha‐blockers vs placebo with/without analgesics | RR 0.53 [0.15, 1.81] | 1 study · 39 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hospital stay — not reported Alpha‐blockers vs placebo with/without analgesics | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Shock wave lithotripsy versus dissolution therapy for renal stones
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Stone‐free rate Shock wave lithotripsy vs dissolution therapy | RR 1.13 [0.9, 1.41] | 1 study · 87 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Serious adverse events or complications of treatment Shock wave lithotripsy vs dissolution therapy | RR 1.23 [0.08, 19.05] | 1 study · 87 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Secondary procedures for residual fragments Shock wave lithotripsy vs dissolution therapy | RR 0.66 [0.29, 1.5] | 1 study · 87 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hospital stay — not reported Shock wave lithotripsy vs dissolution therapy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Slow shock wave lithotripsy versus rapid shock wave lithotripsy for renal stones
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Stone‐free rate Slow shock wave lithotripsy vs rapid shock wave lithotripsy | RR 2.25 [1.16, 4.36] | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Serious adverse events or complications of treatment Slow shock wave lithotripsy vs rapid shock wave lithotripsy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Secondary procedures Slow shock wave lithotripsy vs rapid shock wave lithotripsy | RR 0.38 [0.11, 1.28] | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hospital stay — not reported Slow shock wave lithotripsy vs rapid shock wave lithotripsy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Shock wave lithotripsy versus ureteroscopy with holmium laser or pneumatic lithotripsy for renal and distal ureteric stones
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Stone‐free rate Shock wave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopy with holmium laser or pneumatic lithotripsy | RR 0.62 [0.43, 0.88] | 3 studies · 153 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Serious adverse events or complications of treatment Shock wave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopy with holmium laser or pneumatic lithotripsy | RR 0.56 [0.12, 2.58] | 3 studies · 153 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Second procedures Shock wave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopy with holmium laser or pneumatic lithotripsy | RR 3.47 [1.32, 9.15] | 3 studies · 131 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hospital stay Shock wave lithotripsy vs ureteroscopy with holmium laser or pneumatic lithotripsy | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 122 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Shock wave lithotripsy versus mini‐percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Stone‐free rate Shock wave lithotripsy vs mini‐percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | RR 0.88 [0.8, 0.97] | 1 study · 212 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Serious adverse events or complications of treatment Shock wave lithotripsy vs mini‐percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | RR 0.13 [0.02, 0.98] | 1 study · 212 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Secondary procedures Shock wave lithotripsy vs mini‐percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | RR 2.5 [1.01, 6.2] | 1 study · 212 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hospital stay Shock wave lithotripsy vs mini‐percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 212 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Stone‐free rate Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy vs tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | RR 1.16 [0.88, 1.53] | 1 study · 23 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Serious adverse events or complications of treatments Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy vs tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | RR 0.42 [0.02, 9.43] | 1 study · 23 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Secondary procedures Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy vs tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | RR 0.42 [0.02, 9.43] | 1 study · 23 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hospital stay Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy vs tubeless percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 23 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy versus tubeless mini‐percutaneous nephrolithotripsy for renal stones
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Stone‐free rate Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy vs tubeless mini‐percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | RR 1.03 [0.93, 1.14] | 1 study · 70 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Serious adverse events or complications of treatment — not reported Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy vs tubeless mini‐percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Secondary procedures Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy vs tubeless mini‐percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 70 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hospital stay Percutaneous nephrolithotripsy vs tubeless mini‐percutaneous nephrolithotripsy | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 70 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Alpha‐blockers versus placebo with/without analgesics
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Stone‐free rate Alpha‐blockers vs placebo with/without analgesics | RR 1.34 [1.16, 1.54] | 6 studies · 335 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Serious adverse events or complications of treatment Alpha‐blockers vs placebo with/without analgesics | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 63 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Secondary procedures for residual fragments Alpha‐blockers vs placebo with/without analgesics | RR 0.53 [0.15, 1.81] | 1 study · 39 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias |
Hospital stay — not reported Alpha‐blockers vs placebo with/without analgesics | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |