| Title |
Treatment effect, adherence, and safety of high fluid intake for the prevention of incident and recurrent kidney stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nephrology, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40620-015-0210-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Wisit Cheungpasitporn, Sandro Rossetti, Keith Friend, Stephen B. Erickson, John C. Lieske |
| Abstract |
The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to evaluate the effectiveness of high fluid intake for the prevention of incident and recurrent kidney stones, as well as its adherence and safety. A literature search was performed encompassing 1980 through July 2014. Studies that reported relative risks, odds ratios, or hazard ratios comparing the risk of kidney stone events in patients with high vs inadequate fluid intake were included. Pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effect, generic inverse variance method. Nine studies [2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 269 patients; 7 observational studies with 273,685 individuals] were included in the meta-analysis. Pooled RRs of kidney stones in individuals with high-fluid intake were 0.40 (95 % CI 0.20-0.79) and 0.49 (0.34-0.71) in RCTs and observational studies, respectively. High fluid intake was significantly associated with reduced risk of recurrent kidney stones: RRs 0.40 (95 % CI 0.20-0.79) and 0.20 (0.09-0.44) in RCTs and observational studies, respectively. Adherence and safety data on high fluid intake treatment were limited; 1 RCT reported no withdrawals due to adverse events. This analysis demonstrated a significantly reduced risk of incident kidney stones among individuals with high fluid consumption. High fluid consumption also reduced the risk of recurrent kidney stones. Furthermore, the magnitude of risk reduction was high. Although increased water intake appears to be safe, future studies on its safety in patients with high risk of volume overload or hyponatremia may be indicated. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 14% |
| Canada | 1 | 14% |
| United States | 1 | 14% |
| Unknown | 4 | 57% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 57% |
| Scientists | 3 | 43% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 107 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 18 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 10% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 12% |
| Unknown | 36 | 34% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 7 | 7% |
| Unknown | 42 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 29 August 2020.
All research outputs
#4,365,505
of 23,999,200 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nephrology
#175
of 1,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,858
of 269,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nephrology
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,999,200 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 269,056 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 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.