SynthesisMedicine2018
Association between cadmium exposure and urolithiasis risk: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Environmental cadmium exposure and the risk of kidney stones: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- DNA Sensors for the Detection of Mercury Ions.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Review
- A multi-year heavy metal analysis of 72 dark chocolate and cocoa products in the USA.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Article
- Non-Lethal Concentrations of CdClToxics · 2023Article
- Estimation of health risks associated with dietary cadmium exposure.Archives of toxicology · 2023Review
- Association and interactions between mixed exposure to trace elements and the prevalence of kidney stones: a study of NHANES 2017-2018.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Association between aldehyde exposure and kidney stones in adults.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe performed a meta-analysis to determine whether a consistent relationship exists between cadmium exposure and urolithiasis in humans. Accordingly, we summarized and reviewed previously published quantitative studies.
methodsEligible studies with reference lists published before June 1, 2017 were obtained from searching several databases. Random effects models were used to summary the overall estimate of the multivariate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsSix observational studies involving 88,045 participants were identified and stratified into the following categories according to cadmium assessment results: occupational (n = 4) and dietary (n = 2). The findings of the meta-analysis suggested that the risk of urolithiasis increases significantly by 1.32 times at higher cadmium exposure (OR = 1.32; 95% CI = 1.08-1.62; for highest vs lowest category urinary cadmium values). The summary OR in occupational exposure (OR = 1.56; 95% CI = 1.13-2.14) increased at the same condition. Meanwhile, no association was observed between cadmium exposure and urolithiasis risk in dietary exposure (OR = 1.13; 95% CI = 0.87-1.47). A significant association remained consistent, as indicated by subgroup analyses and sensitivity analyses.
conclusionsThe meta-analysis indicated that increased risk of urolithiasis is associated with high cadmium exposure, and this association is higher in occupational exposure than in dietary exposure. Nevertheless, well-designed observational studies with different ethnic populations are still needed.
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.