Comparison of Treatment of Renal Calculi by Open Surgery, Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, and Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy.¶
Charig, C. R., Webb, D. R., Payne, S. R., & Wickham, J. E. (1986). Comparison of Treatment of Renal Calculi by Open Surgery, Percutaneous Nephrolithotomy, and Extracorporeal Shockwave Lithotripsy. British Medical Journal, 879-882.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Simpson–Yule Effect
- In epidemiology and medicine, a treatment can look worse than placebo overall while being better within every severity stratum, because sicker patients were preferentially given the treatment.
This sourceThe kidney-stone case in which open surgery beats percutaneous nephrolithotomy within both stone-size strata yet loses in the pooled rate, because the more invasive treatment was preferentially given to larger (harder) stones — the canonical medical Simpson's-paradox example whose numbers (78% vs 83% pooled; 93%/87% and 73%/69% by stratum) are reproduced in the prime's worked example.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Supplies a real surgical case where open surgery (78%) trails percutaneous nephrolithotomy (83%) overall and was used mostly on larger stones; not a placebo comparison, and the stratum reversal is not shown.
“Mostopenprocedureswereforstonesgreaterthan2cm”
- In epidemiology and medicine, a treatment can look worse than placebo overall while being better within every severity stratum, because sicker patients were preferentially given the treatment.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:99da60e35c11 · see in the full table