ArticleUrology2023
Kidney Stone Prevalence Based on Self-Report and Electronic Health Records: Insight into the Prevalence of Active Medical Care for Kidney Stones.
Article in Urology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Global prevalence of urolithiasis: a meta-analysis accounting for methodological heterogeneity.Frontiers in urology · 2025Pooled it
- Long-term mortality risk in US adults with a history of kidney stones: results from NHANES III with over 30 years of follow-up.International urology and nephrology · 2025Observational
- High Self-Reported Prevalence of Kidney Stones in Trinidad and Tobago: Results of a Cross-Sectional Online Survey.Cureus · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare rates of patient-reported kidney stone disease to Electronic Health Records (EHR) kidney stone diagnosis using a common dataset to evaluate for socio-demographic differences, including between those with and without active care.
methodsFrom the All of Us research database, we identified 21,687 adult participants with both patient-reported and EHR data. We compared differences in age, sex, race, education, employment status and healthcare access between patients with self-reported kidney stone history without EHR data to those with EHR-based diagnoses.
resultsIn this population, the self-reported prevalence of kidney stones was 8.6% overall (n = 1877), including 4.6% (n = 1004) who had self-reported diagnoses but no EHR data. Among those with self-reported kidney stone diagnoses only, the median age was 66. The EHR-based prevalence of kidney stones was 5.7% (n = 1231), median age 67. No differences were observed in age, sex, education, employment status, rural/urban status, or ability to afford healthcare between groups with EHR diagnosis or self-reported diagnosis only. Of patients who had a self-reported history of kidney stones, 24% reported actively seeing a provider for kidney stones.
conclusionKidney stone prevalence by self-report is higher than EHR-based prevalence in this national dataset. Using either method alone to estimate kidney stone prevalence may exclude some patients with the condition, although the demographic profile of both groups is similar. Approximately 1 in 4 patients report actively seeing a provider for stone disease.
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.