Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-SUP-14 standard review
Vitamin C pills and kidney stones
Ascorbic acid supplements and kidney stone incidence among men: a prospective study.
Overview
Thomas LD et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2013 · PMID 23381591 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2296
Not read (no abstract).
Does the study support the specific claim? Unclear · Methodological quality: low
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
Kidney stones and vitamin C.
- How was the study done?
Cohort letter.
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not read.
- What was actually found?
Not read.
- How large was the observed effect?
Not read.
- What are the study's limitations?
No abstract.
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Cannot judge.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
Anything specific.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Thomas LD, Elinder CG, Tiselius HG, Wolk A, Akesson A
- Journal
- JAMA Intern Med
- Year
- 2013
- Identifier
- PMID 23381591 DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2296
- Verification
- verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
not stated in abstract
2. Research question
Ascorbic acid supplements and kidney stone incidence
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Cohort study – Research letter (prospective cohort of Swedish men; no abstract in PubMed)
- Population
Men (per title)
- Country
Sweden (per affiliations not verified)
- Period
not verifiable
- Sample size
not verifiable
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
see abstract
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
Ascorbic acid supplement use
- Comparator
Non-use
- Endpoints
Kidney stones
- Statistical methods
not verifiable
5. Actual results
- Results
No abstract available in PubMed; results could not be read for this review.
- Absolute risks
not reported in abstract
- Authors' conclusion
not verifiable
6. Strengths
7. Weaknesses
- Letter format; not read
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- ROBINS-E
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- not assessable
- Rationale
Not read.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
See results.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
High: biology and trial populations comparable to European adults.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Could not be assessed.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | low |
| Risk of bias | not assessable |
| Precision of results | not applicable |
| Directness | direct |
| Reproducibility | unknown |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | unknown |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not verifiable |
14. Open questions
15. Linked fact checks
Use by the Tayebat archive
Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.
- What the archive says about the study
Listed in the archive bibliography of the oral-supplements rule without its own interpretation; used implicitly to support the rule summary that supplements 'failed or caused harm' in large trials.
- A. What was actually studied?
Ascorbic acid supplements and kidney stone incidence
- B. What did the authors find?
No abstract available in PubMed; results could not be read for this review.
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
not verifiable
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Supports 'more kidney stones'.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
Not verifiable from the record; USPSTF 2022 lists kidney stones with vitamin C as limited evidence.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- not verifiable