IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0196659.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lack of evidence that nephrolithiasis increases the risk of sialolithiasis: A longitudinal follow-up study using a national sample cohort

Author

Listed:
  • Hyo Geun Choi
  • Woojin Bang
  • Bumjung Park
  • Songyong Sim
  • Kyung Tae
  • Chang Myeon Song

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the risk of sialolithiasis in nephrolithiasis patients. Methods: Using data from the national cohort study from the Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service, we selected 24,038 patients with nephrolithiasis. The control group consisted of 96,152 participants without nephrolithiasis who were matched 1:4 by age, sex, income, region of residence, diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia. The incidence of sialolithiasis in the two groups was compared, with a follow-up period of up to 12 years. The crude and adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of nephrolithiasis to sialolithiasis was analyzed with a Cox-proportional hazard regression model. Results: The rates of sialolithiasis in the nephrolithiasis group and the control group were not significantly different (0.08% vs. 0.1%, P = 0.447). The crude and adjusted hazard ratios of nephrolithiasis to sialolithiasis were not statistically significant (crude HR = 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.50–1.35, P = 0.448; adjusted HR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.49–1.33, P = 0.399). Subgroup analyses according to age and sex also failed to reveal statistical significance. Conclusion: There is no evidence of an increased risk of sialolithiasis associated with nephrolithiasis. We suggest that routine evaluation for sialolithiasis in all patients with nephrolithiasis is not necessary.

Suggested Citation

  • Hyo Geun Choi & Woojin Bang & Bumjung Park & Songyong Sim & Kyung Tae & Chang Myeon Song, 2018. "Lack of evidence that nephrolithiasis increases the risk of sialolithiasis: A longitudinal follow-up study using a national sample cohort," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(4), pages 1-11, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0196659
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196659
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0196659
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0196659&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0196659?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0196659. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.