The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Medical Management of Kidney Stones: AUA Guideline
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this guideline is to provide a clinical framework for the diagnosis, prevention and follow-up of adult patients with kidney stones based on the best available published literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The primary source of evidence for this guideline was the systematic review conducted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality on recurrent nephrolithiasis in adults. To augment and broaden the body of evidence in the AHRQ report, the AUA conducted supplementary searches for articles published from 2007 through 2012 that were systematically reviewed using a methodology developed a priori. In total, these sources yielded 46 studies that were used to form evidence-based guideline statements. In the absence of sufficient evidence, additional statements were developed as Clinical Principles and Expert Opinions. RESULTS: Guideline statements were created to inform clinicians regarding the use of a screening evaluation for first-time and recurrent stone formers, the appropriate initiation of a metabolic evaluation in select patients and recommendations for the initiation and follow-up of medication and/or dietary measures in specific patients. CONCLUSIONS: A variety of medications and dietary measures have been evaluated with greater or less rigor for their efficacy in reducing recurrence rates in stone formers. The guideline statements offered in this document provide a simple, evidence-based approach to identify high-risk or interested stone-forming patients for whom medical and dietary therapy based on metabolic testing and close follow-up is likely to be effective in reducing stone recurrence.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies
Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W. S., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J. J., Reitsma, J. B., Leeflang, M. M. G., Sterne, J. A. C., Bossuyt, P. M. M., & the QUADAS-2 Group* (2011) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009 · Cited by 14,199
The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus
Hsu, C.-C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007) · University of Massachusetts Amherst · doi:10.7275/pdz9-th90 · Cited by 4,500
Determinants of 24-hour Urinary Oxalate Excretion
Taylor, E. N., & Curhan, G. C. (2008) · Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · doi:10.2215/cjn.01410308 · Cited by 173
Self-citation
Cited by
Bollerslev, J., Rejnmark, L., Marcocci, C., Shoback, D. M., Sitges-Serra, A., van Biesen, W., & Dekkers, O. M. (2015) · European Journal of Endocrinology · doi:10.1530/eje-15-0628 · Cited by 462
Determining the true burden of kidney stone disease
Thongprayoon, C., Krambeck, A. E., & Rule, A. D. (2020) · Nature Reviews Nephrology · doi:10.1038/s41581-020-0320-7 · Cited by 409
Metadata
- Authors
- Pearle, M. S., Goldfarb, D. S., Assimos, D. G., Curhan, G., Denu-Ciocca, C. J., Matlaga, B. R., Monga, M., Penniston, K. L., Preminger, G. M., Turk, T. M. T., & White, J. R.
- Venue
- Journal of Urology
- Published
- 2014-08
- Volume
- 192
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 316-324
- ISSN
- 0022-5347 (ISSN-L)
- 1527-3792
- OpenAlex
- W2077502347
- Cited by
- 1,099
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 45.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Medical Management of Kidney Stones: AUA Guideline. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.juro.2014.05.006
- The paper
- Pearle, M. S., Goldfarb, D. S., Assimos, D. G., Curhan, G., Denu-Ciocca, C. J., Matlaga, B. R., Monga, M., Penniston, K. L., Preminger, G. M., Turk, T. M. T., & White, J. R. (2014). Medical Management of Kidney Stones: AUA Guideline. Journal of Urology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.05.006
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.