Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34372696›Full record

SynthesismBio2021

Meta-analysis of Clinical Microbiome Studies in Urolithiasis Reveal Age, Stone Composition, and Study Location as the Predominant Factors in Urolithiasis-Associated Microbiome Composition.

Naveen Kachroo, Dirk Lange, Kristina L Penniston, Joshua Stern, Gregory Tasian, Petar Bajic, Alan J Wolfe, Mangesh Suryavanshi, Andrea Ticinesi, Tiziana Meschi and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in mBio, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Microbiota and kidney disease: the road ahead.Nature reviews. Nephrology · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

12 authors at 9 institutions in 4 countries.

Naveen KachrooGlickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinicgrid.239578.2, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Dirk LangeThe Stone Centre at VGH, Department of Urologic Sciences, University of British Colombia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Kristina L PennistonDepartment of Urology, University of Wisconsin-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Joshua SternDepartment of Urology, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Gregory TasianDivision of Urology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia and Departments of Surgery and Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Petar BajicGlickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinicgrid.239578.2, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Alan J WolfeDepartment of Microbiology and Immunology, Loyola University-Chicago, Maywood, Illinois, USA.
Mangesh SuryavanshiYenepoya Research Centre, Yenepoya University, Mangalore, India.
Andrea TicinesiGeriatric-Rehabilitation Department, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Parma, Parma, Italy.
Tiziana MeschiDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
Manoj MongaGlickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinicgrid.239578.2, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Aaron W MillerGlickman Urological and Kidney Institute, Cleveland Clinicgrid.239578.2, Cleveland, Ohio, USA.
Cleveland Clinic · USChildren's Hospital of Philadelphia · USIntermountain Healthcare · USLoyola University Chicago · USOspedale di Parma · ITUniversity of British Columbia · CAUniversity of Parma · ITUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · USYenepoya University · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To determine whether functionally relevant questions associated with the urinary or gut microbiome and urinary stone disease (USD) can be answered from metagenome-wide association studies (MWAS), we performed the most comprehensive meta-analysis of published clinical MWAS in USD to date, using publicly available data published prior to April 2021. Six relevant studies met inclusion criteria. For alpha-diversity, significant differences were noted between USD status, stone composition, sample type, study location, age, diet, and sex. For beta-diversity, significant differences were noted by USD status, stone composition, sample type, study location, antibiotic use (30 days and 12 months before sampling), sex, hypertension, water intake, body habitus, and age.

Indexed as

MetagenomeHumansMaleMicrobiotaUrinary CalculiUrinary TractUrolithiasisclinicalkidney stonemeta-analysismetagenomemetagenomicsmicrobiomeurolithiasis

Identifiers

PMID34372696
PMCPMC8406293
OpenAlexW3187968971

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.