Race, ethnicity and urolithiasis: a critical review

被引:26
|
作者
Rodgers, Allen L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cape Town, Dept Chem, ZA-7701 Cape Town, South Africa
基金
新加坡国家研究基金会; 英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Urolithiasis; Kidney stones; Race; Ethnicity; Lithogenic factors; Stone prevalence; URINARY PROTHROMBIN FRAGMENT-1; LITHOGENIC RISK-FACTORS; STONE-PRONE; KIDNEY-STONES; POPULATION; OXALATE; PREVALENCE; LITHIASIS; AFRICAN; CALCULI;
D O I
10.1007/s00240-012-0516-9
中图分类号
R5 [内科学]; R69 [泌尿科学(泌尿生殖系疾病)];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Using combinations of the key words urolithiasis, kidney stones, race, ethnicity, population group in Google Scholar and Pubmed, a literature search identified 40 articles. Of these, 33 satisfied the principal inclusion criterion of studies involving comparison of at least two groups in which there is a perceived difference in stone occurrence. Studies were classified as "weak'' (no attempt to account for inter-racial or inter-ethnic group differences in stone occurrence), "soft'' (speculative explanations reached by default) or "hard'' (explanations based on empirically measured lithogenic risk factors). Only 12 studies (36 %) fell into the latter category. Among these, a wide diversity of lithogenic factors was invoked to explain inter-group differences in stone rates. Traditional urinary physicochemical risk factors do not convincingly account for these differences. Studies have failed to yield a consolidated and unifying theory which compellingly explains racial and ethnic differences in urolithiasis.
引用
收藏
页码:99 / 103
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条