↓ Skip to main content

Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
38 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2018
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008509.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thijs Campschroer, Xiaoye Zhu, Robin WM Vernooij, MTW Tycho Lock

Abstract

Ureteral colic is a common reason for patients to seek medical care. Alpha-blockers are commonly used to improve stone passage through so-called medical expulsive therapy (MET), but their effectiveness remains controversial. This is an update of a 2014 Cochrane review; since that time, several large randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have been reported, making this update relevant. To assess effects of alpha-blockers compared with standard therapy for ureteral stones 1 cm or smaller confirmed by imaging in adult patients presenting with symptoms of ureteral stone disease. On 18 November 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, and Embase. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO Portal/ICTRP to identify all published/unpublished and ongoing trials. We checked all references of included and review articles and conference proceedings for articles relevant to this review. We sent letters to investigators to request information about unpublished or incomplete studies. We included RCTs of ureteral stone passage in adult patients that compared alpha-blockers versus standard therapy. Two review authors screened studies for inclusion and extracted data using standard methodological procedures. We performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Primary outcomes were stone clearance and major adverse events; secondary outcomes were stone expulsion time, number of pain episodes, use of diclofenac, hospitalisation, and surgical intervention. We assessed the quality of evidence on a per-outcome basis using the GRADE approach. We included 67 studies with 10,509 participants overall. Of these, 15 studies with 5787 participants used a placebo.Stone clearance: Based on the overall analysis, treatment with an alpha-blocker may result in a large increase in stone clearance (risk ratio (RR) 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 1.55; low-quality evidence). A subset of higher-quality, placebo-controlled trials suggest that the likely effect is probably smaller (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.25; moderate-quality evidence), corresponding to 116 more (95% CI 51 more to 182 more) stone clearances per 1000 participants.Major adverse events: Based on the overall analysis, treatment with an alpha-blocker may have little effect on major adverse events (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.96; low-quality evidence). A subset of higher-quality, placebo-controlled trials suggest that alpha-blockers likely increase the risk of major adverse events slightly (RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.86), corresponding to 29 more (95% CI 3 more to 75 more) major adverse events per 1000 participants.Patients treated with alpha-blockers may experience shorter stone expulsion times (mean difference (MD) -3.40 days, 95% CI -4.17 to -2.63; low-quality evidence), may use less diclofenac (MD -82.41, 95% CI -122.51 to -42.31; low-quality evidence), and likely require fewer hospitalisations (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77; moderate-quality evidence), corresponding to 69 fewer hospitalisations (95% CI 93 fewer to 32 fewer) per 1000 participants. Meanwhile, the need for surgical intervention appears similar (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.02; low-quality evidence), corresponding to 28 fewer surgical interventions (95% CI 51 fewer to 2 more) per 1000 participants.A predefined subgroup analysis (test for subgroup differences; P = 0.002) suggests that effects of alpha-blockers may vary with stone size, with RR of 1.06 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.15; P = 0.16; I² = 62%) for stones 5 mm or smaller versus 1.45 (95% CI 1.22 to 1.72; P < 0.0001; I² = 59%) for stones larger than 5 mm. We found no evidence suggesting possible subgroup effects based on stone location or alpha-blocker type. For patients with ureteral stones, alpha-blockers likely increase stone clearance but probably also slightly increase the risk of major adverse events. Subgroup analyses suggest that alpha-blockers may be less effective for smaller (5 mm or smaller) than for larger stones (greater than 5 mm).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 38 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 84 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Student > Master 12 14%
Researcher 8 10%
Other 6 7%
Student > Postgraduate 6 7%
Other 20 24%
Unknown 19 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 22 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 35. 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 05 November 2019.
All research outputs
#530,241
of 14,229,176 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,554
of 10,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,093
of 276,578 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#55
of 199 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,229,176 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,901 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 276,578 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 199 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 72% of its contemporaries.