Evidence Hub

Medical Expulsive Therapy after Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Y. Moon, Jae Yong Jeong, Dong Hyuk Kang, H. Jung, Lawrence H. Kim, Joo Yong Lee

Yonsei medical journal, 2026

3,262 participants

Abstract

PURPOSE

Medical expulsive therapy (MET) after extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (ESWL) remains a subject of debate. We aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of various pharmacological interventions using a network meta-analysis (NMA) of 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library was conducted through 2024 (Open Science Framework registered). We included only purely pharmacological RCTs, strictly excluding non-randomized studies and device-assisted trials. A Bayesian NMA was performed to estimate odds ratios and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for stone-free rates and complications.

RESULTS

Twenty-one RCTs involving 3262 patients were analyzed. The tamsulosin-tadalafil combination was identified as the most effective strategy (SUCRA: 93.8%), followed by tamsulosin-corticosteroid (78.2%) and boron supplementation (67.9%). Notably, while silodosin is often superior for single intact stones, it ranked relatively low in the post-ESWL setting (SUCRA: 20.9%). All agents showed acceptable safety profiles without significant serious adverse events compared to controls.

CONCLUSION

The tamsulosin-tadalafil combination represents the optimal pharmacological adjunct to ESWL. Our findings suggest that effective post-ESWL MET requires a broad therapeutic approach targeting multi-segmental ureteral relaxation and inflammation to clear fragment "showers,"…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 3,262 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free