| Title |
RETRACTED ARTICLE: Association between serum vitamin D levels and the risk of kidney stone: evidence from a meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Nutrition Journal, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12937-016-0148-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hai Wang, Libo Man, Guizhong Li, Guanglin Huang, Ning Liu |
| Abstract |
Many epidemiological studies have conducted to evaluate the association between serum vitamin D levels and the risk of kidney stone. The aim of this study was to summarize the evidence from epidemiological studies between them. Pertinent studies were identified by a search of PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and China Biology Medical literature up to July 2015. Standardized mean difference (SMD) was conducted to combine the results. Random-effect model was used. Publication bias was estimated using Egger's regression asymmetry test. Seven articles involving 451 kidney stone cases and 482 controls were included in this meta-analysis. Our pooled results suggested that kidney stone patients had a significantly higher serum vitamin D level compared with controls [summary SMD = 0.65, 95 % CI = 0.51, 0.79, I(2) = 97.0 %]. The associations were also significant both in Europe [SMD = 0.35, 95 % CI = 0.17, 0.53] and in Asia [SMD = 1.00, 95 % CI = 0.76, 1.25]. No publication bias was found. Our analysis indicated that serum vitamin D level in kidney stone patients was significantly higher than that in non-kidney stone controls, both in Europe and Asia populations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Czechia | 1 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 21% |
| Unknown | 9 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 32% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 15 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 March 2018.
All research outputs
#13,463,735
of 22,858,915 outputs
Outputs from Nutrition Journal
#1,025
of 1,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,867
of 301,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nutrition Journal
#24
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,858,915 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.3. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 301,001 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.