C. Chaussy, J. Schuller, E. Schmiedt, H. Brandl, D. Jocham and B. Liedl, “Extracorporeal Shock-Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) for Treatment of Urolithiasis,” Urology, Vol. 23, No. 5, 1984, pp. 59-66.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0090-4295(84)90243-7

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Efficacy of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy (ESWL) versus Pneumatic Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy (URSL) for Lower Ureteral Stones Therapy in Asia: A Meta-Analysis

  AUTHORS: Tao Li, Shengjun Fu, Xing Ming, Li Yang, Ji Cheng, Zhiping Wang

  KEYWORDS: Efficacy of Extracorporeal Shock Wave Lithotripsy; Pneumatic Ureteroscopic Lithotripsy; Distal Ureteral Stones; ESWL; URSL

  JOURNAL NAME: International Journal of Clinical Medicine, Vol.5 No.1, January 7, 2014

  ABSTRACT: Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy or pneumatic ureteroscopic lithotripsy for lower ureteral stones therapy, we sought to identify and summarize randomized controlled trials that were used to treat distal ureteral stone. Methods: Eligible studies were identified from electronic databases. Database search, quality assessment, and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. Our primary outcome was the stone-free rate. Secondary outcomes were the fragmentation rate, complications and the rate of re-treatment and secondary procedures. The results were assessed by Review Manager 5.0. Publication bias was evaluated by Stata 11.0. Results: 13 trials were included. Meta-analysis of pooled data showed that pneumatic ureteroscopic lithotripsy demonstrated a significant advantage over extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (OR = 0.14, 95% CI [0.09, 0.23], P P = 0.0002); and the rate of re-treatment and secondary procedure was lower in pneumatic ureteroscopic lithotripsy than in extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy (OR = 5.37, 95% CI [2.61, 11.07], P