Introduction: The K-BILD is a validated HRQOL questionnaire. We previously reported the MID is 8 units. Item responses are now transformed to logits rather than using raw responses, as this is potentially a more linear scale (Patel A, JCE 2015;68;1019). The aim of this study was to re-evaluate the K-BILD MID using the logit scale. Methods: 57 patients with ILD (17-IPF) completed the K-BILD on 2 occasions. At the second visit patients also completed a Global rating of change of health status questionnaire (GRCQ). The MID was calculated as the mean of 4 different methods (anchors): GRCQ, 7-12% change in FVC, 1 SEM and effect size (ES) of 0.3. Results: The mean(SD) K-BILD Total score for all patients was 55.3(15.6). 36 patients reported a change in their condition on the GRCQ. There was a significant change in K-BILD score in patients reporting a change in GRCQ; mean(SD) 57.0(13.6) vs. 50.0(9.7); mean diff 7.0; 95% CI 3.0 to 11.0; p<0.01. The change in K-BILD score correlated with the GRCQ; r=-0.49, p<0.01. The mean(range) K-BILD total score MID was 5(4-7). | | MID Anchor | Mean MID | || | | GRCQ | FVC 7-12% | 1 SEM | ES 0.3 | | | K-BILD Psychological | 5.3 (17.8) | 7.4 (5.6) | 5.8 | 5.8 | 6 | | K-BILD Breathlessness and Activities | 8.3 (18.3) | 6.9 (12.0) | 6.9 | 6.1 | 7 | | K-BILD Chest | 11.2 (19.4) | 13.7 (21.5) | 12.3 | 7.1 | 11 | | K-BILD Total | 6.7 (13.2) | 6.1 (7.0) | 3.8 | 4.7 | 5 | Conclusion: In conclusion K-BILD is a responsive tool for longitudinal assessment of HRQOL in patients with ILD. The MID of the K-BILD Total score is a 5 unit change.

Objective: To evaluate the safety, efficacy, tolerability, and cost‐effectiveness of bedside or office‐based ureteric stent insertion. Methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses‐Protocols (PRISMA‐P) and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2 guidelines, we searched PubMed/the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), the Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Google Scholar, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Dimensions for English‐language studies from 1978 to April 2023. Inclusion criteria focused on primary ureteric stent placements outside of the operating theatre (OT). Results: A total of 15 studies involving 2072 stents were included. Success rates for correctly positioned stents in bedside or office‐based insertions ranged from 60% to 95.8%, with most studies reporting ≥80% success rates. Common failure reasons included impacted stones and difficulty identifying the ureteric orifice. Pain and tolerability were assessed using various methods, with validated tools indicating moderate pain levels, but most patients would undergo the procedure again under local anaesthesia. Complication rates were generally low, with minor complications such as haematuria or postoperative fever being the most common. Procedural costs were significantly lower in non‐OT settings, with estimates indicating savings of up to four‐fold. Conclusion: Bedside or office‐based ureteric stent insertion is a viable alternative to OT procedures, offering high success rates, manageable pain levels, low complication rates, and substantial cost savings. This approach is particularly advantageous in settings with limited OT access, highlighting its potential for broader adoption in urological practice. Future research should focus on standardising pain assessment methods and randomised studies.

Background/Objectives: Renal colic poses a significant burden on patients and healthcare systems. Negative ureteroscopy in the setting of stented patients is reported at up to 14%, resulting in unnecessary surgeries and inefficiencies. While ureteral stents have demonstrated efficacy in relieving obstruction, their exact effect on spontaneous stone passage (SSP) is unclear. Hence, a systematic evaluation of the literature was performed to identify the impact of ureteral stents on spontaneous stone passage rates. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and PubMed (January 1989–February 2025) to identify studies investigating indwelling ureteric stents and SSP. Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts and full texts, with a third resolving conflicts. Quality assessment was conducted using The Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies—of Interventions (ROBINS-I) and Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB-2) tools. Results: A total of 2437 patients in 14 studies investigating SSP in stented patients were included. One included study was a randomised controlled trial, but the rest were observational (n = 13). Three studies compared stented and control groups, whereas 11 studies only investigated patients with stents. Mean/median overall stone sizes ranged from 4.7 to 7.8 mm in diameter. Overall, SSP rates with stents varied significantly, ranging from 1.7 to 42.3%, in the setting of variable stone size, location, duration of follow-up, and method of stone passage detection. When comparing stented and non-stented patients, two studies demonstrated impaired SSP rates in stented patients (13.9% vs. 26.8% and 14% vs. 20%), but only one of these differences was statistically significant. Three studies comparing patients with retrograde ureteral stents and nephrostomies found increased SSP rates in nephrostomy cohorts (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Stone passage rates with stents vary widely due to heterogeneity in study design, patient characteristics, and follow-up. Some studies suggest that stents may impair passage; however, evidence remains inconclusive due to the limited availability of high-quality comparative data. This study underscores the need for larger prospective trials to clarify the actual impact of stenting on stone passage.