Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36169664›Full record

ArticleUrolithiasis2022

Attitudes of urologists on metabolic evaluation for urolithiasis: outcomes of a global survey from 57 countries.

Mehmet Ali Karagöz, Selçuk Güven, Tzevat Tefik, Mehmet İlker Gökçe, Murat Can Kiremit, Feyzi Arda Atar, Muhammed Arif İbiş, Yasin Yitgin, Abubekir Böyük, Samed Verep and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Urolithiasis, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. The role of inflammation and ROS in CaOx kidney stones.European journal of medical research · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
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

11 authors.

Mehmet Ali KaragözDepartment of Urology, Health Sciences University, Prof. Dr. Cemil Taşcıoğlu City Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. dr_mali@msn.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0144-2041
Selçuk GüvenDepartment of Urology, Meram Medical Faculty, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5009-8435
Tzevat TefikDepartment of Urology, İstanbul University İstanbul School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1398-8332
Mehmet İlker GökçeDepartment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2370-548X
Murat Can KiremitDepartment of Urology, Koc University Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6676-9205
Feyzi Arda AtarDepartment of Urology, Başakşehir Çam Ve Sakura City Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7831-1501
Muhammed Arif İbişDepartment of Urology, Keçiören Training and Research Hospital, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8581-2101
Yasin YitginDepatment of Urology, Faculty of Medicine, Istinye University, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1111-6941
Abubekir BöyükDepartment of Urology, Medivita İncirli Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0746-2377
Samed VerepDepartment of Urology, Van Training and Research Hospital, Van, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1086-6380
Kemal SarıcaDepartment of Urology, Biruni University Medical School, Medicana Bahçelievler Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2473-1313

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although stone disease is an important health problem with high incidence and recurrence rates, it is a preventable disease. Attitudes and practices of urologists regarding the prevention of recurrence continue to be a subject of debate. In this context, an online survey study was conducted involving 305 urologists from 57 different countries. The first 7 questions collected demographic data about the urologists and the remaining 23 questions were about the recurrence and metabolic evaluation, medical treatment, and follow-up of urinary stone disease. Most urologists (85.2%) thought that metabolic examination was important. Approximately one-third of the participants (34.1%) performed 24-hour urine analysis and stone analysis was ordered by 87.5% of the urologists. Metabolic analysis was performed for all patients by 14.7% of the participants. For pediatric patients this rate was 68.5%, and for adults with recurrence the rate was 81.6%. Reasons cited by the urologists for not performing metabolic analysis included not feeling confident doing so (18.3%), having limited facilities in their hospital (26.5%), having an excessive daily workload (31.8%), patient-related factors (27.5%), and referring patients to other departments for metabolic evaluation (20.9%). Although majority of the responding urologists do consider the metabolic analysis as vital important, they seemed not to be willing to perform these tests with the same degree of enthusiasm in their daily practice. Our results show that urologists need support in performing and interpreting 24-hour urine analysis, improving their knowledge levels, and communicating with patients. Urology residency training should focus more on the prevention of urinary stone recurrence in addition to the surgical training.

Indexed as

Urinary CalculiUrolithiasisAdultChildHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesUrologists24-hour urine analysisMetabolic evaluationStone analysisStone recurrenceUrolithiasis

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.