De S, Autorino R, Kim FJ, Zargar H, Laydner H, Balsamo R, Torricelli FC, Di Palma C, Molina WR, Monga M et al (2015) Percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus retrograde intrarenal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol 67(1):125–137

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Dorantes-Carrillo LA, Basulto-Martínez M, Suárez-Ibarrola R, Heinze A, Proietti S, Flores-Tapia JP, Esqueda-Mendoza A, Giusti G (2022) Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus miniaturized percutaneous nephrolithotomy for kidney stones >1cm: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur Urol Focus 8(1):259–270

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Zhang W, Zhou T, Wu T, Gao X, Peng Y, Xu C, Chen Q, Song R, Sun Y (2015) Retrograde intrarenal surgery versus percutaneous nephrolithotomy versus extracorporeal shockwave lithotripsy for treatment of lower pole renal stones: a meta-analysis and systematic review. J Endourol 29(7):745–759

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, Monga M, Murad MH, Nelson CP, Pace KT, Pais VM Jr, Pearle MS, Preminger GM et al (2016) Surgical management of stones: american urological association/endourological society guideline. PART I J Urol 196(4):1153–1160

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Zeng G, Cai C, Duan X, Xu X, Mao H, Li X, Nie Y, Xie J, Li J, Lu J et al (2021) Mini percutaneous nephrolithotomy is a noninferior modality to standard percutaneous nephrolithotomy for the management of 20–40mm renal calculi: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Eur Urol 79(1):114–121

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Wu T, Duan X, Chen S, Yang X, Tang T, Cui S (2017) Ureteroscopic lithotripsy versus laparoscopic ureterolithotomy or percutaneous nephrolithotomy in the management of large proximal ureteral stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Int 99(3):308–319

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Wendt-Nordahl G, Mut T, Krombach P, Michel MS, Knoll T (2011) Do new generation flexible ureterorenoscopes offer a higher treatment success than their predecessors? Urol Res 39(3):185–188

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Geraghty R, Abourmarzouk O, Rai B, Biyani CS, Rukin NJ, Somani BK (2015) Evidence for ureterorenoscopy and laser fragmentation (ursl) for large renal stones in the modern era. Curr Urol Rep 16(8):54

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Uleri A, Farré A, Izquierdo P, Angerri O, Kanashiro A, Balaña J, Gauhar V, Castellani D, Sanchez-Martin F, Monga M et al (2024) Thulium fiber laser versus holmium: yttrium aluminum garnet for lithotripsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2024.01.011

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Leijte JA, Oddens JR, Lock TM (2008) Holmium laser lithotripsy for ureteral calculi: predictive factors for complications and success. J Endourol 22(2):257–260

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kronenberg P, Hameed BZ, Somani B (2021) Outcomes of thulium fibre laser for treatment of urinary tract stones: results of a systematic review. Curr Opin Urol 31(2):80–86

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Ulvik Ø, Æsøy MS, Juliebø-Jones P, Gjengstø P, Beisland C (2022) Thulium fibre laser versus holmium:yag for ureteroscopic lithotripsy: outcomes from a prospective randomised clinical trial. Eur Urol 82(1):73–79

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Hardy LA, Vinnichenko V, Fried NM (2019) High power holmium:YAG versus thulium fiber laser treatment of kidney stones in dusting mode: ablation rate and fragment size studies. Lasers Surg Med 51(6):522–530

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Jiang P, Okhunov Z, Afyouni AS, Ali S, Hosseini Sharifi SH, Bhatt R, Brevik A, Ayad M, Larson K, Osann K et al (2023) Comparison of superpulse thulium fiber laser vs holmium laser for ablation of renal calculi in an in vivo porcine model. J Endourol 37(3):335–340

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Xu Y, Min Z, Wan SP, Nie H, Duan G (2018) Complications of retrograde intrarenal surgery classified by the modified Clavien grading system. Urolithiasis 46(2):197–202

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Kadlec AO, Greco KA, Fridirici ZC, Hart ST, Vellos TG, Turk TM (2013) Comparison of complication rates for unilateral and bilateral percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) using a modified Clavien grading system. BJU Int. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11589.x

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Geavlete P, Georgescu D, Niţă G, Mirciulescu V, Cauni V (2006) Complications of 2735 retrograde semirigid ureteroscopy procedures: a single-center experience. J Endourol 20(3):179–185

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Bhojani N, Miller LE, Bhattacharyya S, Cutone B, Chew BH (2021) Risk factors for urosepsis after ureteroscopy for stone disease: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Endourol 35(7):991–1000

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Seitz C, Desai M, Häcker A, Hakenberg OW, Liatsikos E, Nagele U, Tolley D (2012) Incidence, prevention, and management of complications following percutaneous nephrolitholapaxy. Eur Urol 61(1):146–158

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Geraghty RM, Jones P, Somani BK (2017) Worldwide trends of urinary stone disease treatment over the last two decades: a systematic review. J Endourol 31(6):547–556

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Pietropaolo A, Proietti S, Geraghty R, Skolarikos A, Papatsoris A, Liatsikos E, Somani BK (2017) Trends of “urolithiasis: interventions, simulation, and laser technology” over the last 16 years (2000–2015) as published in the literature (PubMed): a systematic review from European section of Uro-technology (ESUT). World J Urol 35(11):1651–1658

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Pietropaolo A, Proietti S, Jones P, Rangarajan K, Aboumarzouk O, Giusti G, Somani BK (2017) Trends of intervention for paediatric stone disease over the last two decades (2000–2015): a systematic review of literature. Arab J Urol 15(4):306–311

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Ellegaard O, Wallin JA (2015) The bibliometric analysis of scholarly production: how great is the impact? Scientometrics 105(3):1809–1831

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Montazeri A, Mohammadi S (2023) P MH, Ghaemi M, Riazi H, Sheikhi-Mobarakeh Z: Preliminary guideline for reporting bibliometric reviews of the biomedical literature (BIBLIO): a minimum requirements. Syst Rev 12(1):239

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Thompson DF, Walker CK (2015) A descriptive and historical review of bibliometrics with applications to medical sciences. Pharmacotherapy 35(6):551–559

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Morante-Carballo F, Montalván-Burbano N, Quiñonez-Barzola X, Jaya-Montalvo M, Carrión-Mero P (2022) What do we know about water scarcity in semi-arid zones? a global analysis and research trends. Water 14(17):2685

Article  Google Scholar 

Guo K, Li J, Li X, Huang J, Zhou Z (2023) Emerging trends and focus on the link between gut microbiota and type 1 diabetes: a bibliometric and visualization analysis. Front Microbiol 14:1137595

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Al-Jabi SW (2021) Current global research landscape on COVID-19 and depressive disorders: bibliometric and visualization analysis. World J Psychiatry 11(6):253–264

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Al-Jabi SW (2017) Global trends in aspirin resistance-related research from 1990 to 2015: a bibliometric analysis. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 121(6):512–519

Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Giles ED, Purcell SA, Olson J, Vrieling A, Hirko KA, Woodruff K, Playdon MC, Thomas GA, Gilmore LA, Moberly HK et al (2023) Trends in diet and cancer research: a bibliometric and visualization analysis. Cancers (Basel). https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15153761

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Yang J, Wu J, Han T, Lu H, Li F, Li L, Su S, Jiang P, Hou Z (2023) Global research hotspots and frontiers of myasthenia gravis from 2002 to 2021: a bibliometric study. Medicine (Baltimore) 102(24):e34002

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

SeH Z, Abushamma F, Salameh H, Abushanab AS, Koni A, Abu Taha A, Al-Jabi SW, Shahwan M, Jairoun AA, Shakhshir MH (2024) Exploring the nutritional landscape and emerging trends in kidney stone research: visualization and bibliometric analysis. Transl Med Commun. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41231-024-00168-w

Article  Google Scholar 

Heilmann C, Blümle A (2015) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: black boxes of medical literature? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 48(6):807–808

PubMed  Google Scholar 

Møller AM, Myles PS (2016) What makes a good systematic review and meta-analysis? Br J Anaesth 117(4):428–430

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Neely JG, Magit AE, Rich JT, Voelker CC, Wang EW, Paniello RC, Nussenbaum B, Bradley JP (2010) A practical guide to understanding systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 142(1):6–14

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

O’Gorman CS, Macken AP, Cullen W, Saunders J, Dunne C, Higgins MF (2013) What are the differences between a literature search, a literature review, a systematic review and a meta-analysis? and why is a systematic review considered to be so good? Ir Med J 106(2 Suppl):8–10

CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Khalil H, Peters M, Godfrey CM, McInerney P, Soares CB, Parker D (2016) An evidence-based approach to scoping reviews. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 13(2):118–123

Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien K, Colquhoun H, Kastner M, Levac D, Ng C, Sharpe JP, Wilson K et al (2016) A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 16:15

Article  PubMed  PubMed Central