Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34115205›Full record

Trial reportUrolithiasis2022

The impact of smart technology on adherence rates and fluid management in the prevention of kidney stones.

Henry C Wright, Luay Alshara, Heidi DiGennaro, Yvonne El Kassis, Jianbo Li, Manoj Monga, Juan Calle, Sri Sivalingam

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Urolithiasis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. UPDATE - Canadian Urological Association guideline: Evaluation and medical management of kidney stones.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Henry C WrightGlickman Urology and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Q-10, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0214-1072
Luay AlsharaAlbany Medical College, Albany, NY, USA.
Heidi DiGennaroGlickman Urology and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Q-10, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Yvonne El KassisUniversity of Pennsylvania Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jianbo LiGlickman Urology and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Q-10, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Manoj MongaUniversity of California San Diego, San Diego, CA, USA.
Juan CalleGlickman Urology and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Q-10, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA.
Sri SivalingamGlickman Urology and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Ave, Q-10, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. sivalis@ccf.org.

Funding

Cleveland Clinic Foundation Research Programs Committee Grant
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Smart technology (ST) can enhance chronic disease management, yet little is known about the benefits of ST on kidney stone prevention. Our aim was to prospectively evaluate the impact of ST on follow-up adherence rates and urine output (UOP) in patients with nephrolithiasis. Kidney stone patients with low UOP (< 2.5 L/24 h) were randomized into three intervention groups: (1) standard dietary/medical counseling alone (control), (2) control + smartphone fluid management application (app), and (3) control + smart water bottle (bottle). Demographics, adherence rates, kidney stone events, and 24 h urine data were collected and analyzed at baseline, 3-6, and 12 months. We randomized 111 patients (37 per group), of which 20 (55%), 8 (26%), and 10 (33%) patients completed the 12 month follow-up in the control, app, and bottle groups respectively. Control group patients were the most likely to adhere to follow-up (p = 0.004). Overall mean UOP increased by 0.4 L in each group (p < 0.05), with no difference in mean baseline 24 h UOP (1.6 L) and 12 month 24 h UOP (2.0 L) between groups (p > 0.05). Twenty-nine percent of patients achieved a daily UOP goal of > 2.5 L across the treatment groups (p < 0.001). In this prospective study, the 24 h UOP improved across all groups compared to baseline, although adherence to follow-up remained low. Furthermore, the use of ST did not further augment UOP, underscoring the importance of dietary/medical counseling for kidney stone prevention.

Indexed as

Kidney CalculiHumansKidneyProspective StudiesTechnology

Identifiers

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.