Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26614110›Full record

ReviewUrolithiasis2016

Metabolic risk-evaluation and prevention of recurrence in stone disease: does it make sense?

Hans-Göran Tiselius

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Urolithiasis, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 25% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. [Prevention of recurrence of urolithiasis].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hans-Göran TiseliusDivision of Urology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology (CLINTEC), Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. hans-goran.tiselius@telia.com.
Karolinska Institutet · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this review, aspects on the importance of information on urine composition and selection of the most appropriate regimen for prevention of recurrence are discussed. For patients with urolithiasis the treatment is facilitated by urine analysis with estimates of supersaturation levels. Despite lack of strong scientific evidence for the benefit of selective versus non-selective prevention of recurrence in patients with calcium stone disease, there is currently both convincing and logical information in support of tailored/selective treatment regimens aiming at correction of abnormal target variables. Such an approach is also recommended in the EAU and AUA guidelines. It is important, however, that every preventive regimen is balanced between the effects on urine composition and patients' tolerance to the treatment in order to achieve satisfactory compliance. It is possible that future improved understanding of the causes of calcium stone formation might provide a different therapeutic approach.

Indexed as

HumansRecurrenceRisk FactorsUrinary CalculiUrineCalcium stonesDietary adviceDrinking adviceNon-calcium stonesNon-selective treatmentPharmacological treatmentPrevention of recurrenceRisk factorsSelective treatmentSerum analysisStone analysisSupersaturationUrine analysis

Identifiers

PMID26614110
OpenAlexW2177183189

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.