ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2021
Independent and interactive effects of kidney stone formation and conventional risk factors for chronic kidney disease: a follow-up study of Japanese men.
Article in International urology and nephrology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of vacuum-assisted flexible ureteroscopy and percutaneous nephrolithotomy for 2-3 cm upper tract stones: a real-world cohort study.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Article
- Correlation between lifestyle choices, dietary factors, and the risk of adult urolithiasis: insights from a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- Potential association between magnesium depletion score and hyperuricemia in American adults, a cross-sectional study based on NHANES 2003-2018.Preventive medicine reports · 2025Article
- Determinants on urinary excretion of oxalate and other key factors related to urolithiasis among patients with chronic kidney disease: a single center study.Urolithiasis · 2023Article
- Oxalate as a potent promoter of kidney stone formation.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess the impact of interactions between kidney stone formation and conventional risk factors on incident chronic kidney disease (CKD).
methodsA total of 11,402 subjects (men 30-69 years of age, Japanese) without CKD at baseline were observed over an average period of 4 years. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to determine the association between incident CKD, kidney stone formation, and conventional risk factors (diabetes mellitus, hypertension, overweight/obesity, dyslipidemia, and hyperuricemia/gout). We also examined the interactions of renal stones and the conventional risk factors for CKD.
resultsIn total, 2301 men (20.2%) developed incident CKD during the follow-up period. After multivariable adjustment, kidney stones were found to increase the risk of incident CKD (HR 1.16; 95% CI 1.03-1.32). Kidney stone formers with hypertension, dyslipidemia, or hyperuricemia/gout presented a greater risk for incident CKD than those who had either kidney stones or other risk factors. However, no significant interactions between kidney stones and other risk factors were found to increase CKD risk. On the other hand, a negative interactive effect between kidney stones and overweight/obesity was observed, leading to reversed risk of incident CKD in coexistence of both factors.
conclusionKidney stones were linked to a higher risk for the development of CKD. However, no positive interactive effects were identified between renal stones and conventional risk factors on the risk of incident CKD.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33625644What 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.