ReviewDer Urologe. Ausg. A2011
[Recurrence prevention of urolithiasis with respect to economic aspects].
Review in Der Urologe. Ausg. A, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Management of recurrent urolithiasis: indications for therapy escalation and discontinuation].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- An empirical study on hospital-based prevention of recurrent urinary stone disease in Germany.World journal of urology · 2022Article
- Twenty-four-hour urine osmolality as a representative index of adequate hydration and a predictor of recurrence in patients with urolithiasis.International urology and nephrology · 2019Article
- The efficacy of metaphylaxis in treatment of recurrent urolithiasis.Journal of medicine and lifeArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recurrence prevention in urinary stone disease not only makes good medical but also economic sense. Up to 40% of recurrences can be prevented by a rational urinary stone metaphylaxis whereby not only treatment costs but also the cost of lost productive work time can be saved. Detailed knowledge of stone composition and medical history of the patient is a prerequisite for a rational metaphylaxis which according to the S2 guidelines results in assignment to the high or low risk group. The required diagnostic and therapeutic measures are also decided by this classification. In addition to general metaphylaxis (reduction of overweight, physical activity, appropriate fluid intake, balanced diet) further specific measures may be necessary depending on the risk group and stone type.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21976120What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.