↓ Skip to main content

Ureteric stents on extraction strings: a systematic review of literature

Overview of attention for article published in Urolithiasis, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
Title
Ureteric stents on extraction strings: a systematic review of literature
Published in
Urolithiasis, June 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00240-016-0898-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel Oliver, Hannah Wells, Olivier Traxer, Thomas Knoll, Omar Aboumarzouk, Chandra S. Biyani, Bhaskar K. Somani, YAU Group

Abstract

Short-term ureteric stents are commonly placed after ureteroscopy. The removal usually entails having a cystoscopy, but recently, endourologists have been using stents with extraction strings attached to them for ease of removal. We wanted to conduct a systematic review of literature looking at the outcomes of ureteric stents with extraction strings attached to them. Our objective was to investigate the use, morbidity, tolerability, complications, associated cost, and patient preference of stents with extraction strings attached to them. All studies in English language (between 1990 and 2015) where stents on extraction strings were either self-removed by patients or removed by physician were included. A total of eight studies (1279 patients) were included, of which 483 (38 %) patients had extraction strings for removal. There seemed to be no overall difference in pain scores or urinary symptoms between patients with and without extraction strings, but nearly 10 % of patients suffered stent dislodgement in the group with extraction strings attached. Overall stent dwell time was lower in patients who had their stents removed via extraction strings, and majority of them were able to remove their stents at home. Our study suggests that stents with extraction strings are easy for patient self-removal and can reduce the stent dwell time for patients, thus reducing the duration of morbidity and physical and financial burden to patients. However, this must be balanced against a risk of stent dislodgement and, hence, may not be a good option in all patients.

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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 61 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 16%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Researcher 4 6%
Other 11 18%
Unknown 22 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Unknown 32 52%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 21 May 2018.
All research outputs
#13,582,166
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Urolithiasis
#174
of 331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#188,690
of 354,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Urolithiasis
#8
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 331 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% 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 354,508 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.