Ectopic biomineralization in kidney stone formers compared to non-stone formers.

BACKGROUND: Kidney stone formers (SFs) are at increased risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, and atherosclerosis of the carotid and coronary arteries. These cardiovascular and urologic pathologies can result from ectopic biomineral deposition. The objectives of this study are: (I) to evaluate risk factors for ectopic biomineralization, and (II) to characterize the overall burden of ectopic minerals in known SFs compared to non-stone formers (NSFs) matched for these risk factors. METHODS: Presence and quantity of biominerals at eight anatomic locations (abdominal aorta, common iliac arteries, pelvic veins, prostate or uterus, mesentery, pancreas, and spleen) were determined in a case control study by retrospective analysis of clinical non-contrast computed tomography scans obtained from 190 SFs and 190 gender- and age-matched NSFs (renal transplant donors). Predictors of biomineralization were determined using negative binomial regression. A subgroup of 140 SFs and 140 NSFs were matched for risk factors for systemic biomineralization, and mineralization was compared between these matched SFs and NSFs using ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: Hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes mellitus, and smoking were more common amongst SFs. Risk factors for increased systemic biomineralization included history of nephrolithiasis, male gender, older age, and history of hyperlipidemia. When controlling for these comorbidities, SFs had significantly increased biomineralization systemically and at the abdominal aorta, iliac arteries, prostate, mesentery, pancreas, and spleen compared to NSFs. CONCLUSIONS: The current study provides evidence that SFs are at increased risk of biomineralization systemically, independent of common risk factors of atherosclerosis.

The landscape of urological retractions: the prevalence of reported research misconduct.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the landscape of retractions of literature and to determine the prevalence of research misconduct in the field of urology. METHODS: Three databases (PUBMED, Embase, Retraction Watch) were queried for all retracted studies on urological topics in both urological and non-urological journals from April 1999 to March 2018. Two reviewers screened the records and determined the final list of articles to be included in the analysis. RESULTS: A total of 138 articles met the inclusion criteria. Over 80% of retractions occurred after 2009. Retractions originated from 76 different journals (13 urological journals) and 28 countries. The most common reasons for retraction were plagiarism (28%), fake peer review (20%), error (20%), and falsification of data (13%). Misconduct accounted for two-thirds of the retractions (n = 93). A large watermark, indicating retraction of the article, was present in 75% of the manuscripts. Articles were cited a total of 4454 times, 38% of citations happened after retraction. The majority of retracted articles related to urological oncology (70%). The highest number of retractions for an individual author was five. Rates of retraction among popular urological journals since 2010 have increased but remain a small proportion of all publications: BJUI, 0.189%; World Journal of Urology, 0.132%; European Urology, 0.058%; Urology, 0.047%; and Journal of Urology, 0.024%. CONCLUSION: Retractions of urological literature, similarly to retractions of other biomedical literature, have been rising over the last decade. The majority of these retractions stem from research misconduct. Despite retractions, flawed articles continued to be cited.