↓ Skip to main content

Early versus late ureteric stent removal after kidney transplantation

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Early versus late ureteric stent removal after kidney transplantation
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011455.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Emily R Thompson, Sarah A Hosgood, Michael L Nicholson, Colin H Wilson

Abstract

Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for patients with end-stage kidney disease. In a previous review we concluded that the routine use of ureteric stents in kidney transplantation reduces the incidence of major urological complications (MUC). Unfortunately, this reduction appears to lead to a concomitant rise in urinary tract infections (UTI). For kidney recipients UTI is now the commonest post-transplant complication. This represents a considerable risk to the immunosuppressed transplant recipient, particularly in the era of increased immunologically challenging transplants. There are a number of different approaches taken when considering ureteric stenting and these are associated with differing degrees of morbidity and hospital cost. This review aimed to look at the benefits and harms of early versus late removal of the ureteric stent in kidney transplant recipients. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register up to 27 March 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. All RCTs and quasi-RCTs were included in our meta-analysis. We included recipients of kidney transplants regardless of demography (adults or children) or the type of stent used. Two authors reviewed the identified studies to ascertain if they met inclusion criteria. We designated removal of a ureteric stent before the third postoperative week (< day 15) or during the index transplant admission as "early" removal. The studies were assessed for quality using the risk of bias tool. The primary outcome of interest was the incidence of MUC. Further outcomes of interest were the incidence of UTI, idiosyncratic stent-related complications, hospital-related costs and adverse events. A subgroup analysis was performed examining the difference in complications reported depending on the type of ureteric stent used; bladder indwelling (BI) versus per-urethral (PU). Statistical analyses were performed using the random effects model and results expressed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Five studies (1127 patients) were included in our analysis. Generally the risk of bias of the included studies was judged low or unclear; they addressed the research question and utilised a prospective randomised design. It is uncertain whether early stent removal verus late stent removal improved the incidence of MUC (5 studies, 1127 participants: RR 1.87, 95% CI 0.61 to 5.71; I2 = 21%; low certainty evidence). The incidence of UTI may be reduced in the early stent removal group (5 studies, 1127 participants: RR 0.49 95% CI 0.30 to 0.81; I2 = 59%; moderate certainty evidence). This possible reduction in the UTI incidence was only apparent if a BI stent was used, (3 studies, 539 participants, RR 0.45 95% CI 0.29 to 0.70; I2 = 13%; moderate certainty evidence). However, if an externalised PU stent was used there was no discernible difference in UTI incidence between the early and late group (2 studies, 588 participants: RR 0.60 95% CI 0.17, 2.03; I2 = 83%; low certainty evidence). Data on health economics and quality of life outcomes were lacking. Early removal of ureteric stents following kidney transplantation may reduce the incidence of UTI while it uncertain if there is a higher risk of MUC. BI stents are the optimum method for achieving this benefit.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 17%
Student > Master 14 16%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 20 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 14%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 9 10%
Unknown 24 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 10 June 2019.
All research outputs
#1,406,379
of 15,134,090 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#3,812
of 11,113 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,246
of 364,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#99
of 214 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,134,090 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,113 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its peers.
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 364,441 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 214 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.