ArticleJournal of nephrology2021
Practice patterns of kidney stone management across European and non-European centers: an in-depth investigation from the European Renal Stone Network (ERSN).
Article in Journal of nephrology, 2021. 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, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Kidney stone disease Practice patterns among urologists in Canada.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2025Article
- Kidney stone analysis: an EAU section of urolithiasis (EULIS) survey on current practices and perspectives worldwide.World journal of urology · 2024Article
- Diagnostic policies on nephrolithiasis/nephrocalcinosis of possible genetic origin by Italian nephrologists: a survey by the Italian Society of Nephrology with an emphasis on primary hyperoxaluria.Journal of nephrology · 2023Article
- Estimating 24-hour urinary excretion using spot urine measurements in kidney stone formers.Nephrology, dialysis, transplantation : official publication of the European Dialysis and Transplant Association - European Renal Association · 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
4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RATIONALE AND
objectiveKidney stones are a common condition in the general population, however, high-quality evidence for its management is scarce. We propose the creation of an international network with the aim of sharing practice patterns and patient data towards an improvement of our knowledge of the disease. STUDY
designCross-sectional survey. SETTING AND
participantsAn online survey was circulated through several scientific societies. Items were grouped into six domains. Each center's overall score (OS) was also calculated. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Chi square and Mann-Whitney tests were performed for differences across centers.
resultsThe countries that contributed most were Italy (8.6%), Turkey (6.6%), France and Spain (6.1%). Some type of nutritional work-up was implemented in 62% of centers. A DEXA scan was performed by 46% of centers, whereas some kind of acidification test was performed by 25% of centers. Most centers (80%) implemented blood investigations at least at baseline. With regard to 24-h urine exams, 7 out of 16 were performed by at least 50% of centers. Information on stone composition was collected by 58% of centers. The OS was significantly higher among higher-volume centers compared with lower-volume centers (p = 0.002). Significant differences between EU and non-EU centers were found. LIMITATIONS: Cross-sectional design; no validation on information.
conclusionsOur survey highlights the potential for the creation of a network of centers that could share information in a common database for observational research and for enrollment of patients in interventional trials.
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.