Skip to content
EvidenceHelixEvidenceLib · Scientific Encyclopedia
⌘ K

Scientific library

EvidenceLib encyclopediaAll articles A–Z2,835
Books209
All textbooksMedical textbooksHuman anatomyOrganisms & biodiversityOther sciences
Open-access articles1,406Cancer study catalog458How it is made

My workspace this browser

Saved pages0Notes & annotations0

Recently viewed

Explore by field

Cancer and Oncology182Genetics and Genomics170Neuroscience185Cardiovascular Medicine180Immunology142Pharmacology173Molecular Biology161Infectious Diseases150Rare and Inherited Diseases181Clinical Research173Anatomy and Physiology613Drugs and Chemicals621Psychiatry and Psychology185Public Health and Nutrition178Diagnostics and Medical Technology125Respiratory Medicine113Digestive System and Liver91Metabolism and Endocrine Disease177Bones, Joints, Muscles and Skin213Kidney, Urology and Women's Health173Eye, Ear, Nose and Throat55
Plans & pricingCompare EvidenceHelix workspace plans
Library›Open textbooks›Clinical and cost-effectiveness of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower pole stones: the PUrE RCTs›References

Continue where you left off ()

GO BEYOND THE PAGEReading is just the beginning.

Turn scientific reading into research. Compare studies, examine evidence, and organize your findings in EvidenceHelix Workspace.

Explore Research Workspace →

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower pole stones: the PUrE RCTs · References

References

CC BY 4.0 · National Institute for Health and Care Research · approximately 13 min read

  1. Wiseman O, Smith D, Starr K, Aucott L, Hernández R, Thomas R, et al. The PUrE randomised controlled trial 1: Clinical and cost effectiveness of flexible ureterorenoscopy and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower pole stones of ≤10 mm. Eur Urol 2025;88(2):179–89. 10.1016/j.eururo.2025.02.00240268593
  2. Neisius A, Preminger GM. Stones in 2012: epidemiology, prevention and redefining therapeutic standards. Nat Rev Urol 2013;10:75–7. 10.1038/nrurol.2012.25323295238
  3. Jour I, Lam A, Turney B. Urological stone disease: a 5-year update of stone management using hospital episode statistics. BJU Int 2022;130:364–9. 10.1111/bju.1572835306719
  4. Pearle MS, Calhoun EA, Curhan GC; Urologic Diseases of America Project. Urologic diseases in America project: urolithiasis. J Urol 2005;173:848–57. 10.1097/01.ju.0000152082.14384.d715711292
  5. Burgher A, Beman M, Holtzman JL, Monga M. Progression of nephrolithiasis: long-term outcomes with observation of asymptomatic calculi. J Endourol 2004;18:534–9. 10.1089/end.2004.18.53415333216
  6. Glowacki LS, Beecroft ML, Cook RJ, Pahl D, Churchill DN. The natural history of asymptomatic urolithiasis. J Urol 1992;147:319–21. 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)37225-71732583
  7. Osman MM, Alfano Y, Kamp S, Haecker A, Alken P, Michel MS, Knoll T. 5-year-follow-up of patients with clinically insignificant residual fragments after extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy. Eur Urol 2005;47:860–4. 10.1016/j.eururo.2005.01.00515925084
  8. Bihl G, Meyers A. Recurrent renal stone disease-advances in pathogenesis and clinical management. Lancet 2001;358:651–6. 10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05782-811530173
  9. Turney BW, Reynard JM, Noble JG, Keoghane SR. Trends in urological stone disease. BJU Int 2012;109:1082–7. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10495.x21883851
  10. National Statistics. Hospital Episode Statistics, Admitted Patient Care, England: 2013–14: Procedures and Interventions. NHS Digital; 2015. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/hospital-admitted-patient-care-activity/hospital-episode-statistics-admitted-patient-care-england-2013-14 (accessed 17 May 2023).
  11. Cass AS, Grine WB, Jenkins JM, Jordan WR, Mobley TB, Myers DA. The incidence of lower-pole nephrolithiasis – increasing or not? Br J Urol 1998;82:12–5. 10.1046/j.1464-410x.1998.00684.x9698656
  12. Türk C, Petřík A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M, et al. EAU guidelines on interventional treatment for urolithiasis. Eur Urol 2016;69:475–482.26344917
  13. Srisubat A, Potisat S, Lojanapiwat B, Setthawong V, Laopaiboon M. Extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) or retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for kidney stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;11:1465–858. 10.1002/14651858.CD007044.pub3
  14. Tiselius HG, Ackermann D, Alken P, Buck C, Conort P, Gallucci M; Working Party on Lithiasis, European Association of Urology. Guidelines on urolithiasis. Eur Urol 2001;40:362–71. 10.1159/00004980311713390
  15. Albala DM, Assimos DG, Clayman RV, Denstedt JD, Grasso M, Gutierrez-Aceves J, et al. Lower pole I: a prospective randomized trial of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis-initial results. J Urol 2001;166:2072–80. 10.1016/s0022-5347(05)65508-511696709
  16. Candau C, Saussine C, Lang H, Roy C, Faure F, Jacqmin D. Natural history of residual renal stone fragments after ESWL. Eur Urol 2000;37:18–22. 10.1159/00002009310671779
  17. Cass AS. Extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower pole nephrolithiasis? J Endourol 1996;10:17–20. 10.1089/end.1996.10.178833724
  18. Havel D, Saussine C, Fath C, Lang H, Faure F, Jacqmin D. Single stones of the lower pole of the kidney. Comparative results of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. Eur Urol 1998;33:396–400. 10.1159/0000196239612684
  19. Pearle MS, Lotan Y. Urinary Lithiasis: Etiology, Epidemiology, and Pathogenesis. In Campbell MF, Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, editors. Campbell-Walsh Urology. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders; 2007.
  20. Auge BK, Dahm P, Wu NZ, Preminger GM. Ureteroscopic management of lower-pole renal calculi: technique of calculus displacement. J Endourol 2001;15:835–8. 10.1089/08927790175320585211724125
  21. Chung SY, Chon CH, Ng CS, Fuchs GJ. Simultaneous bilateral retrograde intrarenal surgery for stone disease in patients with significant comorbidities. J Endourol 2006;20:761–5. 10.1089/end.2006.20.76117094751
  22. Grasso M, Ficazzola M. Retrograde ureteropyeloscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi. J Urol 1999;162:1904–8. 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)68065-210569534
  23. Holland R, Margel D, Livne PM, Lask DM, Lifshitz DA. Retrograde intrarenal surgery as second-line therapy yields a lower success rate. J Endourol 2006;20:556–9. 10.1089/end.2006.20.55616903814
  24. Kourambas J, Delvecchio FC, Munver R, Preminger GM. Nitinol stone retrieval-assisted ureteroscopic management of lower pole renal calculi. Urology 2000;56:935–9. 10.1016/s0090-4295(00)00821-911113736
  25. Preminger GM. Management of lower pole renal calculi: shock wave lithotripsy versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus flexible ureteroscopy. Urol Res 2006;34:108–11. 10.1007/s00240-005-0020-616463145
  26. Stav K, Cooper A, Zisman A, Leibovici D, Lindner A, Siegel YI. Retrograde intrarenal lithotripsy outcome after failure of shock wave lithotripsy. J Urol 2003;170:2198–201. 10.1097/01.ju.0000096421.56225.7914634378
  27. Skolarikos A, Jung H, Neisius A, Petřík A, Somani B, Tailly T, et al. EAU Guidelines on Urolithiasis. 2023. URL: https://d56bochluxqnz.cloudfront.net/documents/full-guideline/EAU-Guidelines-on-Urolithiasis-2023.pdf (accessed 5 May 2023).
  28. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Renal and Ureteric Stones: Assessment and Management. NICE National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2019. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng118 (accessed 5 May 2023).
  29. Yuruk E, Binbay M, Sari E, Akman T, Altinyay E, Baykal M, et al. A prospective, randomized trial of management for asymptomatic lower pole calculi. J Urol 2010;183:1424–8. 10.1016/j.juro.2009.12.02220172565
  30. Pearle MS, Lingeman JE, Leveillee R, Kuo R, Preminger GM, Nadler RB, et al. Prospective, randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less. J Urol 2005;173:2005–9. 10.1097/01.ju.0000158458.51706.5615879805
  31. Donaldson JF, Lardas M, Scrimgeour D, Stewart F, MacLennan S, Lam TBL, McClinton S. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery, and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for lower-pole renal stones. Eur Urol 2015;67:612–6. 10.1016/j.eururo.2014.09.05425449204
  32. Kumar A, Nanda B, Kumar N. 1827 a prospective randomized comparison between shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm: a single center experience. J Urol 2013;189:e750.
  33. Salem A, Saad I, Emran A, Abdelhakiem M, Abdelrazzak O, Abdelkader M. 1829 laser lithotripsy versus ESWL for lower calyceal renal stones. J Urol 2013;189:e751. 10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.2192
  34. Sener NC, Imamoglu MA, Bas O, Ozturk U, Goktug HNG, Tuygun C, Bakirtas H. Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower pole stones smaller than 1 cm. Urolithiasis 2014;42:127–31. 10.1007/s00240-013-0618-z24220692
  35. Kuo R, Lingeman JE, Leveillee RJ, Pearle MS, Watkins S, Fineberg NS; Lower Pole Study Group. Lower pole II: Initial results from a comparison of shock wave lithotripsy (SWL), ureteroscopy (URS), and percutaneous nephrostolithotomy (PNL) for lower pole nephrolithiasis. J Urol 2003;169:486.
  36. Singh BP, Prakash J, Sankhwar SN, Dhakad U, Sankhwar PL, Goel A, Kumar M. Retrograde intrarenal surgery vs extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy for intermediate size inferior pole calculi: a prospective assessment of objective and subjective outcomes. Urology 2014;83:1016–22. 10.1016/j.urology.2013.12.02624560970
  37. McClinton S, Starr K, Thomas R, MacLennan G, Lam T, Hernandez R, et al. The clinical and cost effectiveness of surgical interventions for stones in the lower pole of the kidney: the percutaneous nephrolithotomy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower pole kidney stones randomised controlled trial (PUrE RCT) protocol. Trials 2020;21:479. 10.1186/s13063-020-04326-x32498699
  38. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199–208.10109801
  39. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996;37:53–72.10158943
  40. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol group. Ann Med 2001;33:337–43. 10.3109/0785389010900208711491192
  41. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011;20:1727–36. 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x21479777
  42. Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res 2013;22:1717–27. 10.1007/s11136-012-0322-423184421
  43. Buchholz I, Janssen MF, Kohlmann T, Feng YS. A systematic review of studies comparing the measurement properties of the three-level and five-level versions of the EQ-5D. PharmacoEconomics 2018;36:645–61. 10.1007/s40273-018-0642-529572719
  44. Janssen MF, Bonsel GJ, Luo N. Is EQ-5D-5L better than EQ-5D-3L? A head-to-head comparison of descriptive systems and value sets from seven countries. PharmacoEconomics 2018;36:675–97. 10.1007/s40273-018-0623-829470821
  45. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 1996;34:220–33.8628042
  46. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Turner-Bowker DM, Gandek B. User’s Manual for the SF-12v2 Health Survey. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric; 2009.
  47. Hernández-Alava M, Pudney S, Wailoo A. Estimating the Relationship between EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L: Results from an English Population Study. The University of Sheffield; 2020. URL: https://eepru.sites.sheffield.ac.uk/reports-publications/reports (accessed 22 November 2023).
  48. Farivar SS, Liu H, Hays RD. Half standard deviation estimate of the minimally important difference in HRQOL scores? Exp Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2004;4:515–23. 10.1586/14737167.4.5.515
  49. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2005;14:1523–32. 10.1007/s11136-004-7713-016110932
  50. Treweek S, Innes K, MacLennan G. Sending Christmas cards to trial participants to improve retention. Trials 2017;18:406.28859674
  51. Coleman E, Arundel C, Clark L, Doherty L, Gillies K, Hewitt C, et al. Bah humbug! association between sending Christmas cards to trial participants and trial retention: randomised study within a trial conducted simultaneously across eight host trials. BMJ 2021;375:e067742. 10.1136/bmj-2021-06774234906985
  52. Ragab M, Baldin N, Collie J, Tran MGB, Al-Hayek S, S Parsy K, et al. Qualitative exploration of the renal stone patients’ experience and development of the renal stone-specific patient-reported outcome measure. BJU Int 2020;125:123–32. 10.1111/bju.1487331313440
  53. Zou G. A modified Poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol 2004;159:702–6. 10.1093/aje/kwh09015033648
  54. Cooper K, Breeman S, Scott NW, Scotland G, Hernández R, Clark TJ, et al. Laparoscopic supracervical hysterectomy compared with second-generation endometrial ablation for heavy menstrual bleeding: the HEALTH RCT. Health Technol Assess 2019;23:1–108. 10.3310/hta23530
  55. Ahmed I, Innes K, Brazzelli M, Gillies K, Newlands R, Avenell A, et al. Protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic cholecystectomy with observation/conservative management for preventing recurrent symptoms and complications in adults with uncomplicated symptomatic gallstones (C-gall trial). BMJ Open 2021;11:e039781. 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039781
  56. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 4th edn. Oxford: OUP; 2015.
  57. Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, Polsky D. Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials. Oxford: OUP; 2014.
  58. Husereau D, Drummond M, Augustovski F, de Bekker-Grob E, Briggs AH, Carswell C, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) statement: updated reporting guidance for health economic evaluations. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2022;20:213–21. 10.1007/s40258-021-00704-x35015207
  59. Jones K, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2021. Kent: Personal Social Services Research Unit; 2021. URL: https://kar.kent.ac.uk/id/eprint/92342 (accessed 22 November 2023).
  60. Curtis LA, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2019. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2019.
  61. Data Intelligence PHS. Scottish Health Service Costs 2019. Public Health Scotland. URL: www.isdscotland.org/health-topics/finance/costs/ (accessed 1 November 2020).
  62. NHS England. 2020/21 National Cost Collection Data Publication. NHS England; 2022. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/publication/2020-21-national-cost-collection-data-publication/ (accessed 17 May 2023).
  63. Office for National Statistics. Earnings and Hours Worked, Age Group: ASHE Table 6. Office of National Statistics; 2023. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/datasets/agegroupashetable6 (accessed 8 November 2023).
  64. UK Government. Expenses and Benefits: Business Travel Mileage for Employees’ Own Vehicles. GOV.UK; 2023. URL: www.gov.uk/expenses-and-benefits-business-travel-mileage/rules-for-tax (accessed 8 November 2023).
  65. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE Health Technology Evaluations: The Manual (PMG36); 2022. URL: www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg36/chapter/introduction-to-health-technology-evaluation (accessed 22 November 2023).
  66. Hernández-Alava M, Pudney S, Wailoo A. Estimating the Relationship between EQ-5D-5L and EQ-5D-3L: Results from an English Population Study. The University of Sheffield; 2020. URL: https://eepru.sites.sheffield.ac.uk/reports-publications/reports (accessed 22 November 2023).
  67. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013 (PMG9). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE); 2013. URL: www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg9 (accessed 22 November 2023).
  68. Gray AM, Clarke PM, Wolstenholme JL, Wordsworth S. Applied Methods of Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Healthcare. Oxford: OUP; 2010.
  69. Buxton J. National Life Tables: UK. Office for National Statistics; 2021. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/datasets/nationallifetablesunitedkingdomreferencetables (accessed 1 June 2023).
  70. Emmott AS, Brotherhood HL, Paterson RF, Lange D, Chew BH. Complications, re-intervention rates, and natural history of residual stone fragments after percutaneous nephrolithotomy. J Endourol 2018;32:28–32. 10.1089/end.2017.061829037066
  71. Wei Y, Royston P. Reconstructing time-to-event data from published Kaplan–Meier curves. Stata J 2017;17:786–802.29398980
  72. D’Costa MR, Pais VM, Rule AD. Leave no stone unturned: defining recurrence in kidney stone formers. Curr Opin Nephrol Hypertens 2019;28:148–53. 10.1097/MNH.000000000000047830531469
  73. Vaughan LE, Enders FT, Lieske JC, Pais VM, Rivera ME, Mehta RA, et al. Predictors of symptomatic kidney stone recurrence after the first and subsequent episodes. Mayo Clin Proc 2019;94:202–10. 10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.01630527866
  74. Briggs A, Sculpher M, Claxton K. Decision Modelling for Health Economic Evaluation. Oxford: OUP; 2006.
  75. Buyukkaramikli NC, Rutten-van Molken MPMH, Severens JL, Al M. TECH-VER: a verification checklist to reduce errors in models and improve their credibility. PharmacoEconomics 2019;37:1391–408. 10.1007/s40273-019-00844-y31705406
  76. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Technology Appraisal Processes. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2023. URL: www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/nice-technology-appraisal-guidance/process (accessed June 2023).
  77. Thorn JC, Davies CF, Brookes ST, Noble SM, Dritsaki M, Gray E, et al. Content of health economics analysis plans (HEAPs) for trial-based economic evaluations: expert Delphi consensus survey. Value Health 2021;24:539–47. 10.1016/j.jval.2020.10.00233840432
  78. Sahin C, Tuncer M, Yazıcı O, Horuz R, Çetinel AC, Eryıldırım B, et al. Do the residual fragments after shock wave lithotripsy affect the quality of life? Urology 2014;84:549–54. 10.1016/j.urology.2014.05.01225168532
  79. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Renal and Ureteric Stones: Assessment and Management (NICE guideline 118 ). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2019. URL: www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng118/evidence (accessed 4 March 2023).
  80. Bosio A, Alessandria E, Dalmasso E, Agosti S, Vitiello F, Vercelli E, et al. Flexible ureterorenoscopy versus shockwave lithotripsy for kidney stones. Eur Urol Focus 2022;8:1816–22. 10.1016/j.euf.2022.04.00435466071
  81. Pearle MS, Lingeman JE, Leveillee R, Kuo R, Preminger GM, Nadler RB, et al. Prospective randomized trial comparing shock wave lithotripsy and ureteroscopy for lower pole caliceal calculi 1 cm or less. J Urol 2008;179:69. 10.1016/j.juro.2008.03.140
  82. Geraghty RM, Jones P, Herrmann TRW, Aboumarzouk O, Somani BK. Ureteroscopy is more cost effective than shock wave lithotripsy for stone treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Urol 2018;36:1783–93. 10.1007/s00345-018-2320-929730839
  83. Koo V, Young M, Thompson T, Duggan B. Cost-effectiveness and efficiency of shockwave lithotripsy vs flexible ureteroscopic holmium: yttrium-aluminium-garnet laser lithotripsy in the treatment of lower pole renal calculi. BJU Int 2011;108:1913–6. 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10172.x21453346
  84. Dasgupta R, Cameron S, Aucott L, MacLennan G, Kilonzo MM, Lam TB, et al. Shockwave lithotripsy compared with ureteroscopic stone treatment for adults with ureteric stones: the TISU non-inferiority RCT. Health Technol Assess 2022;26:1–70. 10.3310/WUZW9042
  85. Zhang H, Hong TY, Li G, Jiang N, Hu C, Cui X, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of ultra-mini PCNL, flexible ureteroscopy, and shock wave lithotripsy on the treatment of 1–2 cm lower pole renal calculi. Urol Int 2019;102:153–9.30352443
  86. Bozzini G, Verze P, Arcaniolo D, Dal Piaz O, Buffi NM, Guazzoni G, et al. A prospective randomized comparison among SWL, PCNL and RIRS for lower calyceal stones less than 2 cm: a multicenter experience: a better understanding on the treatment options for lower pole stones. World J Urol 2017;35:1967–75. 10.1007/s00345-017-2084-728875295
  87. Zeng G, Zhang T, Agrawal M, He X, Zhang W, Xiao K, et al. Super-mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy (SMP) vs retrograde intrarenal surgery for the treatment of 1–2 cm lower-pole renal calculi: an international multicentre randomised controlled trial. BJU Int 2018;122:1034–40. 10.1111/bju.1442729873874
  88. Jiang K, Chen H, Yu X, Chen Z, Ye Z, Yuan H. The ʻall-seeing needleʼ micro-PCNL versus flexible ureterorenoscopy for lower calyceal stones of ≤ 2 cm. Urolithiasis 2019;47:201–6. 10.1007/s00240-018-1049-729497768
  89. Fayad AS, Elsheikh MG, Ghoneima W. Tubeless mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery for lower calyceal stones of ≤2 cm: a prospective randomised controlled study. Arab J Urol 2017;15:36–41. 10.1016/j.aju.2016.10.00228275516
  90. Yavuz A, Kilinc MF, Bayar G. Outcomes of different minimally invasive techniques in lower calyceal stones of 1 to 2 centimeters: a prospective, randomized study. Arch Esp Urol 2020;73:307–15.32379066
  91. Kandemir E, Savun M, Sezer A, Erbin A, Akbulut MF, Sarilar O. Comparison of miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy and standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy in secondary patients: a randomized prospective study. J Endourol 2020;34:26–32. 10.1089/end.2019.053831537115
  92. Jin L, Yang B, Zhou Z, Li N. Comparative efficacy on flexible ureteroscopy lithotripsy and miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the treatment of medium-sized lower-pole renal calculi. J Endourol 2019;33:914–9. 10.1089/end.2019.050431596612
  93. White IR, Horton NJ, Carpenter J, Pocock SJ. Strategy for intention to treat analysis in randomised trials with missing outcome data. BMJ 2011;342:d40. 10.1136/bmj.d4021300711
  94. Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. Wiley Classics Library ed. United States of America: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2004.
  95. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928.22008217
  96. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the journal of clinical epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:380–2.21185693
  97. Kumar A, Kumar N, Vasudeva P, Kumar Jha S, Kumar R, Singh H. A prospective, randomized comparison of shock wave lithotripsy, retrograde intrarenal surgery and miniperc for treatment of 1 to 2 cm radiolucent lower calyceal renal calculi: a single center experience. J Urol 2015;193:160–4. 10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.08825066869
  98. Sener NC, Bas O, Sener E, Zengin K, Ozturk U, Altunkol A, Evliyaoglu Y. Asymptomatic lower pole small renal stones: shock wave lithotripsy, flexible ureteroscopy, or observation? A prospective randomized trial. Urology 2015;85:33–7.25440816
  99. Vilches RM, Aliaga A, Reyes D, Sepulveda F, Mercado A, Moya F, et al. Comparison between retrograde intrarenal surgery and extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in the treatment of lower pole kidney stones up to 15 mm. prospective, randomized study. Actas Urol Esp 2015;39:236–42.25435403
  100. Kandemir A, Guven S, Balasar M, Sonmez MG, Taskapu H, Gurbuz R. A prospective randomized comparison of micropercutaneous nephrolithotomy (microperc) and retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS) for the management of lower pole kidney stones. World J Urol 2017;35:1771–6.28589217
← DiscussionAdditional information →

Attribution. Oliver Wiseman; Daron Smith; Kath Starr; Lorna Aucott; Rodolfo Hernández; Ruth Thomas et al. (2025). Clinical and cost-effectiveness of percutaneous nephrolithotomy, flexible ureterorenoscopy and extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for lower pole stones: the PUrE RCTs. National Institute for Health and Care Research. Copyright © 2025 Wiseman et al. Licensed under CC BY 4.0. NCBI Bookshelf NBK617209. CC BY 4.0. Original source ↗. Text reproduced from the Bookshelf XML without changing wording; figures, images and supplements are not reproduced.

In this chapter Contents

  • References

Source

OpenStax source file ↗

Source record ↗

EvidenceLib is a research-education resource, not medical advice. It does not diagnose, prescribe or recommend starting, stopping or changing any treatment. Talk to a qualified clinician about your own situation. Methods, sources and licences · Rights and removal requests · Legal · Support