IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0158661.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of High, Intermediate, and Low Frequency Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Urinary Tract Stone Disease: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Dong Hyuk Kang
  • Kang Su Cho
  • Won Sik Ham
  • Hyungmin Lee
  • Jong Kyou Kwon
  • Young Deuk Choi
  • Joo Yong Lee

Abstract

Objectives: To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the optimal shock wave lithotripsy (SWL) frequency range for treating urinary stones, i.e., high-frequency (100–120 waves/minute), intermediate-frequency (80–90 waves/minute), and low-frequency (60–70 waves/minute) lithotripsy. Materials and Methods: Relevant RCTs were identified from electronic databases for meta-analysis of SWL success and complication rates. Using pairwise and network meta-analyses, comparisons were made by qualitative and quantitative syntheses. Outcome variables are provided as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Thirteen articles were included in the qualitative and quantitative synthesis using pairwise and network meta-analyses. On pairwise meta-analyses, comparable inter-study heterogeneity was observed for the success rate. On network meta-analyses, the success rates of low- (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.5–2.6) and intermediate-frequency SWL (OR 2.5; 95% CI 1.3–4.6) were higher than high-frequency SWL. Forest plots from the network meta-analysis showed no significant differences in the success rate between low-frequency SWL versus intermediate-frequency SWL (OR 0.87; 95% CI 0.51–1.7). There were no differences in complication rate across different SWL frequency ranges. By rank-probability testing, intermediate-frequency SWL was ranked highest for success rate, followed by low-frequency and high-frequency SWL. Low-frequency SWL was also ranked highest for low complication rate, with high- and intermediate-frequency SWL ranked lower. Conclusions: Intermediate- and low-frequency SWL have better treatment outcomes than high-frequency SWL when considering both efficacy and complication.

Suggested Citation

  • Dong Hyuk Kang & Kang Su Cho & Won Sik Ham & Hyungmin Lee & Jong Kyou Kwon & Young Deuk Choi & Joo Yong Lee, 2016. "Comparison of High, Intermediate, and Low Frequency Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Urinary Tract Stone Disease: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(7), pages 1-22, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0158661
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158661
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0158661
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0158661&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0158661?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Doo Yong Chung & Kang Su Cho & Dae Hun Lee & Jang Hee Han & Dong Hyuk Kang & Hae Do Jung & Jong Kyou Kown & Won Sik Ham & Young Deuk Choi & Joo Yong Lee, 2015. "Impact of Colic Pain as a Significant Factor for Predicting the Stone Free Rate of One-Session Shock Wave Lithotripsy for Treating Ureter Stones: A Bayesian Logistic Regression Model Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-12, April.
    2. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    3. Sofia Dias & Nicky J. Welton & Alex J. Sutton & Deborah M. Caldwell & Guobing Lu & A. E. Ades, 2013. "Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 4," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(5), pages 641-656, July.
    4. Georgia Salanti & Cinzia Del Giovane & Anna Chaimani & Deborah M Caldwell & Julian P T Higgins, 2014. "Evaluating the Quality of Evidence from a Network Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-14, July.
    5. Binod Neupane & Danielle Richer & Ashley Joel Bonner & Taddele Kibret & Joseph Beyene, 2014. "Network Meta-Analysis Using R: A Review of Currently Available Automated Packages," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-17, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Doo Yong Chung & Dong Hyuk Kang & Kang Su Cho & Won Sik Jeong & Hae Do Jung & Jong Kyou Kwon & Seon Heui Lee & Joo Yong Lee, 2019. "Comparison of stone-free rates following shock wave lithotripsy, percutaneous nephrolithotomy, and retrograde intrarenal surgery for treatment of renal stones: A systematic review and network meta-ana," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-24, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fernanda S Tonin & Helena H Borba & Antonio M Mendes & Astrid Wiens & Fernando Fernandez-Llimos & Roberto Pontarolo, 2019. "Description of network meta-analysis geometry: A metrics design study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-14, February.
    2. Konstantinos Katsanos & Panagiotis Kitrou & Stavros Spiliopoulos & Ioannis Maroulis & Theodore Petsas & Dimitris Karnabatidis, 2017. "Comparative effectiveness of different transarterial embolization therapies alone or in combination with local ablative or adjuvant systemic treatments for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A net," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(9), pages 1-31, September.
    3. Keith Tolley & Michael Hutchinson & Xiaojun You & Ping Wang & Bjoern Sperling & Ankush Taneja & Mohammed Kashif Siddiqui & Elizabeth Kinter, 2015. "A Network Meta-Analysis of Efficacy and Evaluation of Safety of Subcutaneous Pegylated Interferon Beta-1a versus Other Injectable Therapies for the Treatment of Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-21, June.
    4. Lukas Schwingshackl & Sofia Dias & Barbara Strasser & Georg Hoffmann, 2013. "Impact of Different Training Modalities on Anthropometric and Metabolic Characteristics in Overweight/Obese Subjects: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-10, December.
    5. Theodoros Papakonstantinou & Adriani Nikolakopoulou & Julian P. T. Higgins & Matthias Egger & Georgia Salanti, 2020. "CINeMA: Software for semiautomated assessment of the confidence in the results of network meta‐analysis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 16(1), March.
    6. Benjamin Castagné & Marie Viprey & Julie Martin & Anne-Marie Schott & Michel Cucherat & Martin Soubrier, 2019. "Cardiovascular safety of tocilizumab: A systematic review and network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-19, August.
    7. Wei Ding & Yulin Tan & Yan Qian & Wenbo Xue & Yibo Wang & Peng Jiang & Xuezhong Xu, 2020. "First-line targ veted therapies of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A Bayesian network analysis of randomized controlled trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-19, March.
    8. Chunhu Shi & Jo C Dumville & Nicky Cullum, 2018. "Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention: A network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-29, February.
    9. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    10. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    11. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    12. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    13. Oded Berger-Tal & Alison L Greggor & Biljana Macura & Carrie Ann Adams & Arden Blumenthal & Amos Bouskila & Ulrika Candolin & Carolina Doran & Esteban Fernández-Juricic & Kiyoko M Gotanda & Catherine , 2019. "Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(1), pages 1-8.
    14. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    15. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    16. Xue-Ying Xu & Hong Kong & Rui-Xiang Song & Yu-Han Zhai & Xiao-Fei Wu & Wen-Si Ai & Hong-Bo Liu, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Noninvasive Biomarkers to Predict Hepatitis B-Related Significant Fibrosis and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-16, June.
    17. Vicente Miñana-Signes & Manuel Monfort-Pañego & Javier Valiente, 2021. "Teaching Back Health in the School Setting: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-18, January.
    18. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Katarzyna Grzybowska, 2022. "In Search of Industry 4.0 and Logistics 4.0 in Small-Medium Enterprises—A State of the Art Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    19. Obsa Urgessa Ayana & Jima Degaga, 2022. "Effects of rural electrification on household welfare: a meta-regression analysis," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 69(2), pages 209-261, June.
    20. Caloffi, Annalisa & Colovic, Ana & Rizzoli, Valentina & Rossi, Federica, 2023. "Innovation intermediaries' types and functions: A computational analysis of the literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0158661. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.