↓ Skip to main content

Do teas rich in antioxidants reduce the physicochemical and peroxidative risk factors for calcium oxalate nephrolithiasis in humans? Pilot studies with Rooibos herbal tea and Japanese green tea

Overview of attention for article published in Urolithiasis, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Do teas rich in antioxidants reduce the physicochemical and peroxidative risk factors for calcium oxalate nephrolithiasis in humans? Pilot studies with Rooibos herbal tea and Japanese green tea
Published in
Urolithiasis, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s00240-015-0855-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. Rodgers, M. Mokoena, I. Durbach, J. Lazarus, S. de Jager, H. Ackermann, I. Breytenbach, A. Okada, M. Usami, Y. Hirose, R. Ando, T. Yasui, K. Kohri

Abstract

Several experimental and animal studies have demonstrated that substances rich in antioxidants can reduce the physicochemical and peroxidative risk factors for calcium oxalate (CaOx) renal stone formation in urine and blood. However, there are very few such investigations in humans. In the present pilot study, two varieties of tea, a green one from Japan (JGT) and a herbal one from South Africa (Rooibos) (RT), both rich in antioxidants, were administered to a group of CaOx stone formers (SF) (n = 8) for 30 days. Both teas were analysed for polyphenols by high-performance liquid chromatography and for minerals by plasma atomic and optical emission spectroscopy. 24 h urines (baseline and day 30) were analysed for lithogenic factors. CaOx metastable limits and crystal nucleation and growth kinetics were also determined in each urine sample. Deposited crystals were inspected by scanning electron microscopy. Blood samples were collected (baseline and day 30). Biomarkers of oxidative stress including plasma and urinary thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) and urinary N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase (NAG) were also determined. Urinary physicochemical risk factors were also investigated after ingestion of RT for 30 days in two control groups (CG1 and CG2), the latter one of which consisted of habitual JGT drinkers. Statistical analyses were performed using Wilcoxon signed rank tests and Mann-Whitney tests for paired and independent measurements, respectively. Several flavonoids and catechins were quantified in RT and JGT, respectively, confirming that both teas are rich sources of antioxidants. Mineral content was found to be far below dietary reference intakes. There were no significant changes in any of the urinary physicochemical or peroxidative risk factors in the control groups or in SF, except for the supersaturation (SS) of brushite (Bru) which decreased in the latter group after ingestion of JGT. Crystal morphology showed a tendency to change from mixed CaOx mono- and di-hydrate to monohydrate after ingestion of each tea. Since the latter form has a stronger binding affinity for epithelial cells, this effect is not protective. Analysis of the physicochemical and peroxidative risk factors in CG1 and CG2 did not reveal any evidence of a synergistic effect between the two teas. Paradoxically, baseline risk factors in the habitual JGT control group were significantly raised relative to those in CG1. Our preliminary results suggest that ingestion of RT and JGT does not reduce the risk factors for CaOx stone formation in humans, but these findings need to be tested in further studies involving much larger sample sizes.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 17%
Researcher 4 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Student > Master 3 10%
Other 1 3%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 9 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 14%
Chemistry 4 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 5 17%
Unknown 12 41%
Attention Score in Context

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 02 February 2016.
All research outputs
#14,180,984
of 22,837,982 outputs
Outputs from Urolithiasis
#186
of 326 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,293
of 393,300 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Urolithiasis
#8
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,837,982 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 326 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 393,300 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.