ArticleNature reviews. Urology2021
Standardization of microbiome studies for urolithiasis: an international consensus agreement.
Article in Nature reviews. Urology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Impact of sample processing method and volume on 16 S rRNA profiling of the urobiome.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Urinary Fungal Microbiome and Associations With Overactive Bladder, Antibiotics and Therapy Response.Neurourology and urodynamics · 2026Article
- Urinary Tract Infection in Patients with Urolithiasis: A Large Retrospective Observational Study of Clinical Features and Microbiological Spectrum.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Observational
- Research advances on the urinary microbiome in non-infectious urinary tract diseases: from community composition to clinical prospects.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026Review
- Methodological bias shapes the interpretation of the urinary microbiome in low-biomass systems.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Impact of study design, contamination, and data characteristics on results and interpretation of microbiome studies.mSystems · 2025Article
- Beyond Infection: How Antimicrobial Therapies Influence the Urinary Microbiome and Stone Disease.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The Prostate Microbiome Is Associated With Prostate Size and PSA Level, Independent of Age, in BPH Patients.The Prostate · 2025Article
- Review
- Opportunities in Primary and Enteric Hyperoxaluria at the Cross-Roads Between the Clinic and Laboratory.Kidney international reports · 2024Article
- Gut and Urinary Microbiota in Cats with Kidney Stones.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- Metabolic syndrome and the urinary microbiome of patients undergoing percutaneous nephrolithotomy.Asian journal of urology · 2024Article
- Microbiome Dynamics: A Paradigm Shift in Combatting Infectious Diseases.Journal of personalized medicine · 2024Review
- The intestinal microbiome of children with initial and recurrent nephrolithiasis: A pilot study and exploratory analysis.Journal of pediatric urology · 2024Article
- Synthesis of current pediatric urinary microbiome research.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Review
- Article
- Oxalate (dys)Metabolism: Person-to-Person Variability, Kidney and Cardiometabolic Toxicity.Genes · 2023Review
- Factors influencing oral microbiome analysis: from saliva sampling methods to next-generation sequencing platforms.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Update on the Effect of the Urinary Microbiome on Urolithiasis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
12 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Numerous metagenome-wide association studies (MWAS) for urolithiasis have been published, leading to the discovery of potential interactions between the microbiome and urolithiasis. However, questions remain about the reproducibility, applicability and physiological relevance of these data owing to discrepancies in experimental technique and a lack of standardization in the field. One barrier to interpreting MWAS is that experimental biases can be introduced at every step of the experimental pipeline, including sample collection, preservation, storage, processing, sequencing, data analysis and validation. Thus, the introduction of standardized protocols that maintain the flexibility to achieve study-specific objectives is urgently required. To address this need, the first international consortium for microbiome in urinary stone disease - MICROCOSM - was created and consensus panel members were asked to participate in a consensus meeting to develop standardized protocols for microbiome studies if they had published an MWAS on urolithiasis. Study-specific protocols were revised until a consensus was reached. This consensus group generated standardized protocols, which are publicly available via a secure online server, for each step in the typical clinical microbiome-urolithiasis study pipeline. This standardization creates the benchmark for future studies to facilitate consistent interpretation of results and, collectively, to lead to effective interventions to prevent the onset of urolithiasis, and will also be useful for investigators interested in microbiome research in other urological diseases.
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.