Journals Library

An error occurred retrieving publication content to display, please try again.

Page not found (404)

Sorry - the page you requested could not be found.

Please choose a page from the navigation or try a website search above to find the information you need.

Shockwave lithotripsy for ureteric stones requires more additional treatments than ureteroscopic stone removal, and though quality of life was reduced, with potential cost savings.

{{author}}{{author}}{{($index > metadata.AuthorsAndEtalArray.length-1) ? ',' : '.'}}

Ranan Dasgupta 1, Sarah Cameron 2, Lorna Aucott 3, Graeme MacLennan 2, Mary M Kilonzo 4, Thomas BL Lam 5,6, Ruth Thomas 2, John Norrie 7, Alison McDonald 2, Ken Anson 8, James N’Dow 5, Neil Burgess 9, Charles T Clark 10, Francis X Keeley 11, Sara J MacLennan 6, Kath Starr 2, Samuel McClinton 5,*

1 Department of Urology, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK
2 Centre for Healthcare Randomised Trials, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
3 Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
4 Health Economics Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
5 NHS Grampian, Department of Urology, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Aberdeen, UK
6 Academic Urology Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
7 Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
8 Department of Urology, St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
9 Department of Urology, Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK
10 Stone Patient Advisory Group, Section of Endourology, British Association of Urological Surgeons, London, UK
11 Bristol Urological Institute, North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK
* Corresponding author Email: samuel.mcclinton@nhs.scot

Funding: {{metadata.Funding}}

{{metadata.Journal}} Volume: {{metadata.Volume}}, Issue: {{metadata.Issue}}, Published in {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'MMMM yyyy'}}

https://doi.org/{{metadata.DOI}}

Citation:{{author}}{{ (($index < metadata.AuthorsArray.length-1) && ($index <=6)) ? ', ' : '' }}{{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length <= 6) ? '.' : '' }} {{(metadata.AuthorsArray.length > 6) ? 'et al. ' : ''}}. {{metadata.JournalShortName}} {{metadata.PublicationDate | date:'yyyy'}};{{metadata.Volume}}({{metadata.Issue}})

Crossmark status check

Report Content

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

The full text of this issue is available as a PDF document from the Toolkit section on this page.

If you would like to receive a notification when this project publishes in the NIHR Journals Library, please submit your email address below.

Responses to this report

No responses have been published.

 

If you would like to submit a response to this publication, please do so using the form below:

Comments submitted to the NIHR Journals Library are electronic letters to the editor. They enable our readers to debate issues raised in research reports published in the Journals Library. We aim to post within 14 working days all responses that contribute substantially to the topic investigated, as determined by the Editors.  Non-relevant comments will be deleted.

Your name and affiliations will be published with your comment.

Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. The Editors may add, remove, or edit comments at their absolute discretion.

By submitting your response, you are stating that you agree to the terms & conditions

An error has occurred in processing the XML document