The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prospective Study of Beverage Use and the Risk of Kidney Stones
Open accessAbstract
Patients with kidney stones are routinely advised to increase their fluid intake to decrease the risk of stone recurrence. However, there has been no detailed examination to determine whether the effect on recurrence varies by the type of beverage consumed. The authors conducted a prospective study of the relation between the intake of 21 different beverages and the risk of symptomatic kidney stones in a cohort of 45,289 men, 40-75 years of age, who had no history of kidney stones. Beverage use and other dietary information was measured by means of a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire in 1986. During 6 years of follow-up (242,100 person-years), 753 incident cases of kidney stones were documented. After adjusting simultaneously for age, dietary intake of calcium, animal protein and potassium, thiazide use, geographic region, profession, and total fluid intake, consumption of specific beverages significantly added to the prediction of kidney stone risk (p < 0.001). After mutually adjusting for the intake of other beverages, the risk of stone formation decreased by the following amount for each 240-ml (8-oz) serving consumed daily: caffeinated coffee, 10% (95% confidence interval 4-15%); decaffeinated coffee, 10% (3-16%); tea, 14% (5-22%); beer, 21% (12-30%); and wine, 39% (10-58%). For each 240-ml serving consumed daily, the risk of stone formation increased by 35% (4-75%) for apple juice and 37% (1-85%) for grapefruit juice. The authors conclude that beverage type may have an effect on stone formation that involves more than additional fluid intake alone.
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
Reproducibility and validity of a semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire
WILLETT, W. C., SAMPSON, L., STAMPFER, M. J., ROSNER, B., BAIN, C., WITSCHI, J., HENNEKENS, C. H., & SPEIZER, F. E. (1985) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114086 · Cited by 4,274
Self-citationTotal energy intake: implications for epidemiologic analyses.
WILLETT, W., & STAMPFER, M. J. (1986) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114366 · Cited by 2,751
Self-citationRimm, E. B., Giovannucci, E. L., Stampfer, M. J., Colditz, G. A., Litin, L. B., & Willett, W. C. (1992) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116211 · Cited by 2,104
Self-citation
Cited by
Effects of soft drink consumption on nutrition and health: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Vartanian, L. R., Schwartz, M. B., & Brownell, K. D. (2007) · American Journal of Public Health · doi:10.2105/ajph.2005.083782 · Cited by 1,863
Carlé, A., Pedersen, I. B., Knudsen, N., Perrild, H., Ovesen, L., Rasmussen, L. B., Jørgensen, T., & Laurberg, P. (2012) · European Journal of Endocrinology · doi:10.1530/eje-12-0356 · Cited by 107
Raj CT, D., Palaninathan, V., & James, R. A. (2023) · Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.bcab.2022.102555 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Curhan, G. C., Willett, W. C., Rimm, E. B., Spiegelman, D., & Stampfer, M. J.
- Venue
- American Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1996-02-01
- Volume
- 143
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 240-247
- ISSN
- 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-6256
- OpenAlex
- W2131269117
- Cited by
- 286
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 7.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
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.