ArticleUrolithiasis2017
Metabolic risk factors in pediatric stone formers: a report from an emerging economy.
Article in Urolithiasis, 2017. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Outcomes and complications of different approaches for 1-2 cm upper tract stones in the paediatric population: bicentric retrospective analysis.Pediatric surgery international · 2026Article
- Metabolic abnormalities, recurrence risk, patient and stone characteristics in calcium-based pediatric stone formers: is there any association?World journal of urology · 2026Article
- Calcium Kidney Stones are Associated with Increased Risk of Carotid Atherosclerosis: The Link between Urinary Stone Risks, Carotid Intima-Media Thickness, and Oxidative Stress Markers.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Monogenic urinary lithiasis in Tunisian children: 25 years' experience of a referral center.La Tunisie medicaleObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The goal of this study was to investigate metabolic risk factors in pediatric stone formers in an emerging economy. A prospective, data collection enrolled 250 children age <1-15 years at our center. Risk factors were evaluated by gender and in age groups <1-5, 6-10 and 11-15 years. Patients were evaluated for demographics, blood and 24 h urine for calcium, magnesium, phosphate, uric acid, electrolytes and additional protein, citrate, ammonia and oxalate in urine. All reported values were two sided and statistical significance was considered at p value ≤0.05. The mean age at diagnosis was 7.50 ± 3.56 years with a male to female ratio of 1.84:1. A family history of urolithiasis was found in 41 (16.4 %), urinary tract infection in 18 (7 %) and chronic diarrhea in 75 (30 %). Hypercalcemia was seen in 37 (14.8 %), hyperuricemia in 23 (9.2 %) and hyperphosphatemia in 6 (2.4 %). Urinary metabolic abnormalities were identified in 248 (98 %) of the cases. Hypocitraturia was found in 207 (82.8 %), hyperoxaluria in 62 (26.4 %), hyperuricosuria in 82 (32.8 %), hypercalciuria in 51 (20.4 %), hyperphosphaturia in 46 (18.4 %), hyperammonuria in 10 (4 %), hypocalciuria in 82 (32.8 %), and hypovolemia in 73 (29.2 %). Risk factors were similar between genders except higher rates of hyponatriuria, hypophosphaturia, and hypocalciuria in females. Hyperuricosuria, hyponatriuria, and hypovolemia were highest in 1-5 years (52, 49, 49 %) as compared to (18, 21, 12 %) those in 11-15 years (p < 0.001), respectively. This study shows that careful metabolic analysis can identify risk factors in 98 % of the children where appropriate metaphylaxis can be undertaken both for treatment and prevention of recurrence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.