ArticleCureus2021
Prevalence of Vitamin D Inadequacy in Urolithiasis Patients.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vitamin D Metabolism and the Risk of Renal Stones: A Focus on PHPT.Metabolites · 2025Review
- Causal association of serum vitamin D levels with urolithiasis: a bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization study.European journal of nutrition · 2024Article
- Vitamins as regulators of calcium-containing kidney stones - new perspectives on the role of the gut microbiome.Nature reviews. Urology · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction The role of vitamin D in kidney stone disease is unclear. Current evidence and existing studies are inconsistent and inconclusive. The objective of this study is to assess the prevalence of vitamin D (VD) inadequacy (VDI) and metabolic abnormalities in urolithiasis patients presenting to a tertiary care center. Materials and methods This is a prospective case-control study of 200 patients divided into two groups - Group 1: 100 urolithiasis patients (case group), and Group 2: 100 non-urolithiasis patients (control group) - which was conducted from January 2016 to January 2017. Demographic, clinical data, parathyroid level, serum 25-hydroxy VD [25(OH)D], and metabolic stone work-up were recorded and analyzed. Results Patient demographics were comparable in both groups. The prevalence of vitamin D inadequacy in urolithiasis patients was 95% as compared to 57% in the control group. The mean value ± SD of serum vitamin D in urolithiasis patients (16.5 ± 8.6 ng/mL) was significantly lower than in non-urolithiasis patients (28.7 ± 8.3 ng/mL) (p = <0.0001). Thirty-seven percent of the patients were recurrent stone formers. Hyperparathyroidism was observed in 77% of the patients and 71% of them were secondary to VDI. Conclusion Urolithiasis patients were found to have an increased prevalence of deficient VD related to secondary hyperparathyroidism.
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.