| Title |
Vitamin B6 intake and the risk of incident kidney stones
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Urolithiasis, July 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00240-017-0999-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Pietro Manuel Ferraro, Eric N. Taylor, Giovanni Gambaro, Gary C. Curhan |
| Abstract |
Higher vitamin B6 intake might reduce urinary excretion of oxalate, one of the major determinants of risk for calcium oxalate kidney stones. Previous studies investigating the association between intake of vitamin B6 and risk of stones found conflicting results. We sought to investigate the association in three large prospective cohorts. We prospectively examined the association in the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS; n = 42,919 men), Nurses' Health Study I (NHS I; n = 60,003 older women), and Nurses' Health Study II (NHS II; n = 90,629 younger women). Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for incident stones across categories of total vitamin B6 intake (<3.0, 3.0-4.9, 5.0-9.9, 10.0-39.9, ≥40.0 mg/day) were generated with Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for potential confounders. During 3,316,846 person-years of follow-up, 6576 incident kidney stones were confirmed. In univariate and multivariate analyses, there was no association between intake of vitamin B6 and incident stones. The HR for stones in the highest category compared with the lowest was 1.05 (95% CI 0.85, 1.30; p value for trend = 0.61) for HPFS, 0.95 (95% CI 0.76, 1.18; p value for trend = 0.42) for NHS I, and 1.06 (95% CI 0.91, 1.24; p value for trend = 0.34) for NHS II. The pooled adjusted HR for the highest category compared with the lowest was 1.03 (95% CI 0.92, 1.15; p value for trend = 0.60). Intake of vitamin B6 is not associated with risk of incident kidney stones. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 20% |
| New Zealand | 1 | 10% |
| Germany | 1 | 10% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 10% |
| Pakistan | 1 | 10% |
| United States | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 3 | 30% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 30% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 43 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 19% |
| Researcher | 5 | 12% |
| Professor | 4 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 9% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 16% |
| Unknown | 12 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 12% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 9% |
| Unknown | 15 | 35% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 April 2023.
All research outputs
#6,560,031
of 25,628,260 outputs
Outputs from Urolithiasis
#172
of 719 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,926
of 326,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Urolithiasis
#2
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,628,260 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 719 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 326,820 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.