The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Contemporary Surgical Trends in the Management of Upper Tract Calculi
Abstract
PURPOSE: Upper tract nephrolithiasis is a common surgical condition that is treated with multiple surgical techniques, including shock wave lithotripsy, ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy. We analyzed case logs submitted to the ABU by candidates for initial certification and recertification to help elucidate the trends in management of upper tract urinary calculi. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Annualized case logs from 2003 to 2012 were analyzed. We used logistic regression models to assess how surgeon specific attributes affected the way that upper tract stones were treated. Cases were identified by the CPT code of the corresponding procedure. RESULTS: A total of 6,620 urologists in 3 certification groups recorded case logs, including 2,275 for initial certification, 2,381 for first recertification and 1,964 for second recertification. A total of 441,162 procedures were logged, of which 54.2% were ureteroscopy, 41.3% were shock wave lithotripsy and 4.5% were percutaneous nephrolithotomy. From 2003 to 2013 there was an increase in ureteroscopy from 40.9% to 59.6% and a corresponding decrease in shock wave lithotripsy from 54% to 36.3%. For new urologists ureteroscopy increased from 47.6% to 70.9% of all stones cases logged and for senior clinicians ureteroscopy increased from 40% to 55%. Endourologists performed a significantly higher proportion of percutaneous nephrolithotomies than nonendourologists (10.6% vs 3.69%, p <0.0001) and a significantly smaller proportion of shock wave lithotripsies (34.2% vs 42.2%, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Junior and senior clinicians showed a dramatic adoption of endoscopic techniques. Treatment of upper tract calculi is an evolving field and provider specific attributes affect how these stones are treated.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: Combining direct and indirect evidence.
Caldwell, D. M., Ades, A. E., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7521.897 · Cited by 1,600
Cited by
Worldwide Trends of Urinary Stone Disease Treatment Over the Last Two Decades: A Systematic Review
Geraghty, R. M., Jones, P., & Somani, B. K. (2017) · Journal of Endourology · doi:10.1089/end.2016.0895 · Cited by 293
Metadata
- Authors
- Oberlin, D. T., Flum, A. S., Bachrach, L., Matulewicz, R. S., & Flury, S. C.
- Venue
- Journal of Urology
- Published
- 2015-03
- Volume
- 193
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 880-884
- ISSN
- 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-3792
- OpenAlex
- W2106854997
- Cited by
- 201
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Contemporary Surgical Trends in the Management of Upper Tract Calculi. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.006
- The paper
- Oberlin, D. T., Flum, A. S., Bachrach, L., Matulewicz, R. S., & Flury, S. C. (2015). Contemporary Surgical Trends in the Management of Upper Tract Calculi. Journal of Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.09.006
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.