The metabolic syndrome and urolithiasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Figures & data

Figure 1. Flow diagram of studies included in the meta-analysis.

Table 1. Relevant studies of the relationship between metabolic syndrome and urolithiasis.

								urolithiasis (%)
Authors, (publication year)	Study design	Country	Population	Time period	Age, yr (range or mean ± SD)	Cohort size (n)	MetS (%)	MetS Group	Non-MetS Group	MetS criteria	RRs (adjusted)	95% CI
West et al.16	Cross-sectional	United States	NHANES III	1988–1994	>20	14 870	33.2	8.8	4.3	AHA/NHLBI	OR 1.52	1.22–1.89
Jeong et al.17	Cross-sectional	Korea	Asian Medical Center	2006	50.0 ± 10.4	34 895	13.1	3.8	2.2	NCEP-ATP-III AHA/NHLBI	OR 1.25	1.03–1.50
Kim et al.18	Cross-sectional	Korea	Health promotion center in Seoul, Korea.	2010	42.33 ± 8.32	116 536	11.5	8.4	5.7	NCEP/ATP-III AHA/NHLBI	OR 1.11	1.02–1.20
Pinto et al.19	Cross-sectional	Brazil	Community-based health program of Niteroi city, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil	2006–2007	43 ± 12	740	38.3	13.3	8.1	Harmonized criteria	OR 1.76	1.07–2.88
Rendina et al.20	Cross-sectional	Italy	Caucasian inpatients of the Spinelli’ Hospital in southern Italy	2004–2005	63.8 ± 15.8	2132	34	15.4	7.6	AHA- NHLBI	OR 2.01	1.34–3.00

Notes: MetS = metabolic syndrome; SD = standard deviation; HDL = high-density lipoprotein; OR = odds ratio; RR = risk ratio; CI = confidence interval; NCEP-ATP-III = National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III; NHANES III = Third National Health Center Nutrition Examination Survey; AHA/NHLBI: American Heart Association/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Harmonized criteria = Harmonizing the metabolic syndrome: a joint interim statement of the International Diabetes Federation Task Force on Epidemiology and Prevention; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; American Heart Association; World Heart Federation; International Atherosclerosis Society; and International Association for the Study of Obesity.

Figure 2. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of individual studies and of pooled data for the association between Metabolic Syndrome and urolithiasis in all subjects [(Q = 27.0663, p-value for heterogeneity = p < 0.0001. I²= 85.22% (67.26–93.33)].

Table 2. Sensitivity analysis of five studies included in the meta-analysis.

Excluded	Fixed OR	95% CI	Random OR	95% CI
1	1.554	1.464–1.65	1.715	1.445–2.036
2	1.63	1.539–1.726	1.865	1.439–2.417
3	1.999	1.814–2.204	1.979	1.737–2.254
4	1.639	1.552–1.731	1.842	1.489–2.280
5	1.620	1.533–1.713	1.762	1.427–2.176

Notes: Studies were removed from the meta-analysis respectively and OR values and confidence intervals (CI) were calculated after removal. According to the baseline rate heterogeneity test, results are represented by italic font.

West B, Luke A, Durazo-Arvizu RA, Cao G, Shoham D, Kramer H. Metabolic syndrome and self-reported history of kidney stones: the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) 1988–1994. Am J Kidney Dis. 2008;51:741–747

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jeong IG, Kang T, Bang JK, et al. Association between metabolic syndrome and the presence of kidney stones in a screened population. Am J Kidney Dis. 2011;58:383–388

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kim YJ, Kim CH, Sung EJ, Kim SR, Shin HC, Jung WJ. Association of nephrolithiasis with metabolic syndrome and its components. Metabolism. 2013;62:808–813

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Filgueiras Pinto Rde S, Almeida JR, Kang HC, Rosa ML, Lugon JR. Metabolic syndrome and associated urolithiasis in adults enrolled in a community-based health program. Fam Pract. 2013;30:276–281

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Rendina D, Mossetti G, De Filippo G, et al. Association between metabolic syndrome and nephrolithiasis in an inpatient population in southern Italy: Role of gender, hypertension and abdominal obesity. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2009;24:900–906

 PubMedGoogle Scholar