Evidence Hub

Which combination of medical expulsive therapy is more effective for treatment of distal ureteral stone in adults? A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Taheri M, Borumandnia N, Abdi H, Kashi AH, Nourani S, Sheikholeslami S, Gilvaei YM, Ziaeefar P et al.

BMC urology, 2025

2,414 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

Background: Medical Expulsive Therapy (MET) has been recommended as an established modality for the treatment of distal ureteral stones due to its clearance rate, pain control, and patient satisfaction while having minimal morbidity in comparison to other urologic interventions. In some studies, a combination of medications has been used, which we assessed in this network meta-analysis (NMA).

Methods: We conducted systematic searches in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science to identify relevant trials published between 2001 and 2024. We excluded articles that looked at MET for upper ureteral stone passage or after shock wave lithotripsy (SWL). NMA was performed to compare the effect of combination MET on stone expulsion rate (SER), stone expulsion time (SET), and need for analgesia.

Results: We included 19 studies with 2414 participants. NMA results revealed that the combination MET of α-blockers with PDE-5 inhibitors (OR = 2.7, CI = 1.80,4.05), corticosteroids (OR = 2.7, CI = 1.81,4.13), and phytotherapy (OR: 3.10, CI = 1.62,5.92) were more effective than α-blockers alone in SER. The combination MET of α-blockers with PDE-5 inhibitors (MD: -3.8, CI=-7.0, -0.5) showed significantly lower SET compared to α-blockers alone. Finally, combination MET of α-blockers with PDE-5 inhibitors (MD:1.0, CI = 0.4,1.7) and nifedipine with corticosteroids (MD:1.2, CI = 0.4,1.9) showed a significant decrease in analgesia use.

Conclusions: The combination MET of α-blockers with PDE-5 inhibitors,…

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: 2,414 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