ArticleUrolithiasis2022
How important urolithiasis is under 2 years of age?
Article in Urolithiasis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nationwide cohort analysis of pediatric urolithiasis: long-term metabolic, renal, and cardiovascular outcomes.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Article
- High-risk factors for urinary calculus recurrence in Chinese preschool children: findings from a medium-term follow-up survey.Translational andrology and urology · 2025Article
- New advances in efficacy prediction of extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy in pediatrics: a narrative review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Review
- Do dietary factors play a role in infantile urolithiasis?Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Urolithiasis (UL) is a common health problem in the world and the observed incidence of this disease is increasing in the infantile period. The study included cases of UL diagnosed before the age of two who had a comprehensive analysis for possible etiologic variables and were followed for a minimum of 6 months. Of the 60 patients included in the study, 37 were male, and the male/female ratio was 1.6. The average age at diagnosis is 8.5 ± 4.5 months. Of the cases diagnosed 41 (68.3%) were before than 1 year of age. The average time for follow-up is 28.9 ± 22.6 months. There was a family history of stone disease in 41 (68.3%) cases. Twenty-four (40%) patients were treated for dehydration at least once before stone disease was identified. The number of patients presenting with symptoms is 43 (71.7%). Restlessness was noted as the main symptom. In 17 (28.3%) patients, stone disease was found incidentally. Metabolic causes (n: 19, 31.6%) were determined to be the most common underlying cause, followed by UTI-related causes (n: 12, 20%). During the follow-up, 57 (64%) of the stones spontaneously disappeared. The size of 16 (18%) stones reduced, while the size of eleven remained same (13%). Following their absence, nine (15%) of the stones reappeared. The essential strategy is to identify high-risk groups, to closely monitor them, and to take preventative interventions against modifiable conditions such as dehydration if possible.
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.