Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34204863›Full record

ReviewNutrients2021

Nutrition and Kidney Stone Disease.

Roswitha Siener

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nutrients, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 181 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
181citing papers in PubMed, 10 pooled it
33.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

181 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 335 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article

121 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Roswitha SienerUniversity Stone Center, Department of Urology, University Hospital Bonn, Venusberg-Campus 1, 53127 Bonn, Germany.
University Hospital Bonn · DE

Funding

Association of German Mineral Water Bottlers not applicable
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The prevalence of kidney stone disease is increasing worldwide. The recurrence rate of urinary stones is estimated to be up to 50%. Nephrolithiasis is associated with increased risk of chronic and end stage kidney disease. Diet composition is considered to play a crucial role in urinary stone formation. There is strong evidence that an inadequate fluid intake is the major dietary risk factor for urolithiasis. While the benefit of high fluid intake has been confirmed, the effect of different beverages, such as tap water, mineral water, fruit juices, soft drinks, tea and coffee, are debated. Other nutritional factors, including dietary protein, carbohydrates, oxalate, calcium and sodium chloride can also modulate the urinary risk profile and contribute to the risk of kidney stone formation. The assessment of nutritional risk factors is an essential component in the specific dietary therapy of kidney stone patients. An appropriate dietary intervention can contribute to the effective prevention of recurrent stones and reduce the burden of invasive surgical procedures for the treatment of urinary stone disease. This narrative review has intended to provide a comprehensive and updated overview on the role of nutrition and diet in kidney stone disease.

Indexed as

Nutritional StatusDietHumansKidney Calculicalcium oxalate stone formationdietdietary assessmentfatty acidsfluidoxalateproteinsodiumuric acidwater

Identifiers

PMID34204863
PMCPMC8229448
OpenAlexW3167010358

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.