Jung HD. et al., 2021: A Systematic Review on Comparative Analyses between Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy and Shock-Wave Lithotripsy for Ureter Stone According to Stone Size.
Jung HD, Hong Y, Lee JY, Lee SH.
Department of Urology, Wonkwang University Sanbon Hospital, Wonkwang University College of Medicine, Gunpo 15865, Korea.
Division of New Health Technology Assessment, National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Seoul 04554, Korea.
Department of Medical Device Management and Research, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, Korea.
Department of Urology, Severance Hospital, Urological Science Institute, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul 03722, Korea.
Center of Evidence Based Medicine, Institute of Convergence Science Yonsei University, Seoul 03722, Korea.
Department of Nursing Science, College of Nursing, Gachon University, Incheon 22212, Korea.
Background and Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to analyze the treatment outcomes of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) and ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL) according to the ureteral stone size. Materials and Methods: In this systematic review, relevant articles that compared SWL and URSL for treatment of ureteral stones were identified. Articles were selected from four English databases including Ovid-Medline, Ovid-EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of controlled Trials (Central), and Google Scholar. A quality assessment was carried out by our researchers independently using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). A total of 1325 studies were identified, but after removing duplicates, there remained 733 studies. Of these studies, 439 were excluded, 294 were screened, and 18 met the study eligibility criteria. Results: In randomized control trial (RCT) studies, URSL showed significantly higher SFR than SWL (p < 0.01, OR= 0.40, 95% CI 0.30-0.55, I² = 29%). The same results were shown in sub-group analysis according to the size of the stone (<1 cm: p < 0.01, OR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.25-0.63; >1 cm: p < 0.01, OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.19-0.74, I² = 55%; not specified: p < 0.01, OR = 0.43, 95% CI 0.25-0.72, I² = 70%). In the non-RCT studies, the effectiveness of the URSL was significantly superior to that of SWL (p < 0.01, OR = 0.33, 95% CI 0.21-0.52, I² = 83%). Retreatment rate was significantly lower in URSL than in SWL regardless of stone size (p < 0.01, OR = 10.22, 95% CI 6.76-15.43, I² = 54%). Conclusions: Meta-analysis results show that SFR was higher than SWL in URSL and that URSL was superior to SWL in retreatment rate. However, more randomized trials are required to identify definitive conclusions.
Medicina (Kaunas). 2021 Dec 16;57(12):1369. doi: 10.3390/medicina57121369.PMID: 34946314 Review. FREE ARTICLE
The paper is published in “Medicina”. This is the scientific journal of the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences. The impact factor indicated on the journals’ home page is 2,43, falling. The journal is one of the 379 journals of the open access publisher MDPI (https://www.mdpi.com/about) located in Switzerland. According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI) MDPI publications were once listed as “predatory journals”. The Wikipedia article offers a good look at open access journals.
To publish in Medicina the processing charge (APC) is 1800 CHF (Swiss Francs).
Why would 4 Korean authors from two departments of Urology, from the National Evidence-Based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, from a department of Medical Device Management and Research of a University College, from a center of Evidence Based Medicine of the Institute of Convergence Science Yonsei University and from a department of Nursing Science publish a review in the journal of the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, which is probably not often read in Korea or elsewhere?
Let us see!
What I expect from a systematic review is that the authors initially declare why their review is worth taking the time to read it. The essential arguments would be that the available literature and especially earlier reviews are insufficient to answer a question. This is lacking in the introduction; instead, the authors state, “Our hypothesis was that URSL would be superior to SWL.” This does not seem to be a new message.
They confirm the hypothesis. In addition, they show that the retreatment rate is higher after ESWL. Both results were to be expected. In the discussion, they mention 5 previous systematic reviews which came more or less to the same conclusions, however analysed more details and offered more information on complications, length of hospital stay etc.
They concluded with a standard formula:”Additional high-quality RCTs are required to make more appropriate comparisons between URSL and SWL for ureteral stones.”
In essence, there is nothing new on URS and SWL from a medical point of view in this review. Consequently non-medical reasons must have caused the publication. However, the authors fail to inform the reader about these reasons.
A conclusion could be not to read papers published in Medicina.