Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30032225›Full record

ReviewAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2018

Caffeine in Kidney Stone Disease: Risk or Benefit?

Paleerath Peerapen, Visith Thongboonkerd

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Systematic evaluation and comparison of theCurrent research in food science · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Paleerath PeerapenMedical Proteomics Unit, Office for Research and Development, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Visith ThongboonkerdMedical Proteomics Unit, Office for Research and Development, Faculty of Medicine, Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Mahidol University · THSiriraj Hospital · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Kidney stone disease is a global health care problem, with a high recurrence rate after stone removal. It is thus crucial to develop effective strategies to prevent the formation of new or recurrent stones. Caffeine is one of the main components in caffeinated beverages worldwide (i.e., coffee, tea, soft drinks, and energy drinks). Previous retrospective and prospective studies have reported contradictory effects of caffeine on kidney stone risk. Although it has a diuretic effect on enhancing urinary output, it may slightly increase the stone risk index. However, 3 large cohorts have suggested a preventive role of caffeine in kidney stone disease. In addition, a recent in vitro study has addressed relevant mechanisms underlying the preventive role of caffeine against stone pathogenesis. This review summarizes the relevant data from previous evidence and discusses the association between caffeine consumption and kidney stone risk reduction.

Indexed as

BeveragesCaffeineCarbonated BeveragesCoffeeDietDiureticsDose-Response Relationship, DrugEnergy DrinksHumansKidneyKidney CalculiProspective StudiesRecurrenceRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsTeaCaffeineCoffeeDiureticsTea

Identifiers

PMID30032225
PMCPMC6054181
OpenAlexW2883796645

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.