pp 1–11 | Cite as

Comparative efficacy of 22 drug interventions as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

  • Hailang Liu
  • Shaogang Wang
  • Wei Zhu
  • Jinjin Lu
  • Xinguang Wang
  • Weimin YangEmail author
Original Paper


To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis for the evaluation of 22 drug interventions in the management of ureteral stones, MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane central databases were searched to identify RCTs focusing on the evaluation of the efficacy of multiple drug interventions in medical expulsive therapy (MET) for ureteral stones, with no restrictions on year or language. Study quality assessment and data extraction were performed by independent reviewers. Major outcome measures were the stone expulsion rate, stone expulsion time, and pain episodes during treatment. A total of 78 RCTs with 14,922 participants were included in the present study. The final comparative results show that naftopidil plus corticosteroids was associated with higher stone expulsion rates than other drug interventions. Silodosin plus tadalafil had the highest probability of reducing stone expulsion time. Tamsulosin plus tadalafil performed better than all the other drug interventions in reducing pain episodes during treatment. However, in terms of all the outcome measures, the ranking plot results demonstrate that silodosin plus tadalafil, in addition to tamsulosin plus tadalafil and corticosteroids, was the best drug intervention as medical expulsive therapy in the management of ureteral stones. In ureteral stones ≤ 10 mm, all active drug interventions were more efficacious than the control; however, not all active drug interventions had an efficacy superior to the placebo. Silodosin plus tadalafil, tamsulosin plus tadalafil and corticosteroids, tamsulosin plus tadalafil, and naftopidil plus corticosteroids were the most effective drug interventions. Considering the choice of treatment, these results should serve as evidence-based practice and be considered by physicians, patients, and guideline developers. However, with respect to the limitations of the present study, further high-quality studies are needed for more in-depth evaluation of both the efficacy and safety of these drug interventions.


Ureteral stones Medical expulsive therapy Drug interventions Efficacy 



This work is supported by the grant from National Natural Science Foundation of China (81573776).

Author contributions

HLL and WMY designed the research; JJL and SGW performed the literature search; WZ and XGW analyzed the data and interpreted the results; HLL and WMY wrote and revised the paper; all authors approved the final manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We declare that there are no potential competing interests in this research.

Human and animal rights

This manuscript adopted study-level data, not involving human individual participants or animals.

Supplementary material

240_2019_1159_MOESM1_ESM.docx (31.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 32444 kb)


  1. 1.
    Romero V, Akpinar H, Assimos DG (2010) Kidney stones: a global picture of prevalence, incidence, and associated risk factors. Rev Urol 12(2–3):e86–e96Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ghani KR, Roghmann F, Sammon JD, Trudeau V, Sukumar S, Rahbar H et al (2014) Emergency department visits in the United States for upper urinary tract stones: trends in hospitalization and charges. J Urol 191(1):90–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ghani KR, Sammon JD, Karakiewicz PI, Sun M, Bhojani N, Sukumar S et al (2013) Trends in surgery for upper urinary tract calculi in the USA using the nationwide inpatient sample: 1999–2009. BJU Int 112(2):224–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Turk C, Petrik A, Sarica K, Seitz C, Skolarikos A, Straub M et al (2016) EAU guidelines on diagnosis and conservative management of urolithiasis. Eur Urol 69(3):468–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Papadoukakis SSJ-U, Truss MC (2006) Treatment strategies of ureteral stones. EAU-EBU Update Series 4(5):184–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davenport K, Timoney AG, Keeley FX Jr (2007) Effect of smooth muscle relaxant drugs on proximal human ureteric activity in vivo: a pilot study. Urol Res 35(4):207–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hollingsworth JM, Rogers MA, Kaufman SR, Bradford TJ, Saint S, Wei JT et al (2006) Medical therapy to facilitate urinary stone passage: a meta-analysis. Lancet 368(9542):1171–1179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Singh A, Alter HJ, Littlepage A (2007) A systematic review of medical therapy to facilitate passage of ureteral calculi. Ann Emerg Med 50(5):552–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Assimos D, Krambeck A, Miller NL, Monga M, Murad MH, Nelson CP et al (2016) Surgical management of stones: American urological association/endourological society guideline. PART II. J Urol 196(4):1161–1169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tan SH, Cooper NJ, Bujkiewicz S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Sutton AJ (2014) Novel presentational approaches were developed for reporting network meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 67(6):672–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greco T, Landoni G, Biondi-Zoccai G, D’Ascenzo F, Zangrillo A (2016) A Bayesian network meta-analysis for binary outcome: how to do it. Stat Methods Med Res 25(5):1757–1773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP (2011) Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol 64(2):163–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD et al (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Salanti G (2012) Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods 3(2):80–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Palmer SC, Mavridis D, Navarese E, Craig JC, Tonelli M, Salanti G et al (2015) Comparative efficacy and safety of blood pressure-lowering agents in adults with diabetes and kidney disease: a network meta-analysis. Lancet 385(9982):2047–2056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Higgins JP, Jackson D, Barrett JK, Lu G, Ades AE, White IR (2012) Consistency and inconsistency in network meta-analysis: concepts and models for multi-arm studies. Res Synth Methods 3(2):98–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Healy KA, Shah O (2018) Stones: MET for distal ureteral calculi: not all stones are created equal. Nat Rev Urol 15(4):210–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Campschroer T, Zhu X, Vernooij RW, Lock MT (2018) Alpha-blockers as medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD008509Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hollingsworth JM, Canales BK, Rogers MA, Sukumar S, Yan P, Kuntz GM et al (2016) Alpha blockers for treatment of ureteric stones: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 355:i6112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sridharan K, Sivaramakrishnan G (2017) Medical expulsive therapy in urolithiasis: a mixed treatment comparison network meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Expert Opin Pharmacother 18(14):1421–1431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Somani BK, Aboumarzouk O, Traxer O, Baard J, Kamphuis G, de la Rosette J (2016) Medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones: where do we go from here? Nat Rev Urol 13(10):608–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sridharan K, Sivaramakrishnan G (2018) Efficacy and safety of alpha blockers in medical expulsive therapy for ureteral stones: a mixed treatment network meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 11(3):291–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kupeli B, Irkilata L, Gurocak S, Tunc L, Kirac M, Karaoglan C et al (2004) Does tamsulosin enhance lower ureteral stone clearance with or without shock wave lithotripsy? Urology 64(6):1111–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Goyal SK, Singh V, Pandey H, Chhabra MK, Aggarwal SP, Bhat A (2018) Comparative efficacy of tamsulosin versus tadalafil as medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteric stones. Urol Ann 10(1):82–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bahadur KCH, Shrestha A, Acharya GB, Basnet RB, Shah AK, Shrestha PM (2016) Tamsulosin versus tadalafil as a medical expulsive therapy for distal ureteral stones: a prospective randomized study. Investig Clin Urol 57(5):351–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kumar S, Jayant K, Agrawal MM, Singh SK, Agrawal S, Parmar KM (2015) Role of Tamsulosin, Tadalafil, and Silodosin as the medical expulsive therapy in lower ureteric stone: a randomized trial (a pilot study). Urology 85(1):59–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Puvvada S, Mylarappa P, Aggarwal K, Patil A, Joshi P, Desigowda R (2016) Comparative efficacy of tadalafil versus tamsulosin as the medical expulsive therapy in lower ureteric stone: a prospective randomized trial. Cent Eur J Urol 69(2):178–182Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Meltzer AC, Burrows PK, Wolfson AB, Hollander JE, Kurz M, Kirkali Z et al (2018) Effect of Tamsulosin on passage of symptomatic ureteral stones: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med 178(8):1051–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hailang Liu
    • 1
  • Shaogang Wang
    • 1
  • Wei Zhu
    • 1
  • Jinjin Lu
    • 1
  • Xinguang Wang
    • 1
  • Weimin Yang
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Urology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical CollegeHuazhong University of Science and TechnologyWuhanChina

Personalised recommendations