ArticleBMJ open2025
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Trends and burden of urolithiasis in China, 1990-2021: a systematic analysis of the global burden of disease study 2021 with future projections to 2036.World journal of urology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUrolithiasis represents a significant global health burden. Comparing incidence trends between countries with distinct socioeconomic profiles, such as the United States and China, is crucial for tailoring public health strategies. This study aimed to characterise and compare the temporal trends of urolithiasis incidence in the United States and China from 1992 to 2021, thereby providing insights for global disease management.
methodsData on urolithiasis incidence in the United States and China from 1992 to 2021 were extracted from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2021 study. First, we utilised joinpoint regression analysis to quantify the magnitude and identify significant turning points in age-standardised incidence rate trends over the study period. Second, an age-period-cohort model (APC model) was applied to assess the independent influence of age, period and cohort effects on incidence. Finally, the Nordpred model was employed to project the incidence trends for the next decade.
resultsFrom 1992 to 2021, the overall incidence of urolithiasis in the United States decreased, but has recently shown an increase; in China, there was a significant reduction. According to the APC model, the highest risk was observed among middle-aged and elderly individuals in these countries. The period and cohort effects in China showed a decline. In the United States, the period effect initially declined but has recently shown an increase; cohort effect peaked around 1930, then declined and also increased in recent years. Over the next decade, the incidence of urolithiasis in both countries was expected to increase.
conclusionThis study analysed the temporal trends in urolithiasis incidence over the past 30 years in the United States and China. Both countries experienced notable advancements in the burden of urolithiasis; however, the risk of an increased incidence remained higher in the United States.
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.