Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Liver, kidney and digestion

Potassiumand Kidney Stone Risk

Only one source here so far, and it measured lower kidney Stone Risk.

How sure anyone can be

Low certainty, level 2 of 4

Further research is likely to change this.

The numbers reported

One source’s range, drawn against its own line of no difference and scaled to its own numbers.

0.10.26 risk ratio0.68

This range stays on one side of the no-difference line.

Bar the confidence interval — the range the true effect is likely to sit inNotch the number the source reportedLine where there would be no difference at all

One source, newest first

What we read is the published abstract, not the full paper, so a blank below may still be printed in the paper itself. A fixed rule worked this out from the source’s own fields. Nobody checked this rating by hand.

  • Systematic review, 2015 · 7 studies pooled · 324 participants

    Low certainty, level 2 of 4

    Citrate salts for preventing and treating calcium containing kidney stones in adults.

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2015(10):CD010057. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010057.pub2. PMID:26439475.

    This source later carried a notice: Update of doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010057. The number below is exactly as the source gave it.

    Number reported
    0.26 risk ratio
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    0.1 to 0.68
    Source’s own words
    risk ratio for new stone formation, potassium-containing citrate salt vs placebo or no intervention
    Who was studied
    Adult with calcium kidney stones
    Compared with
    placebo or no intervention
    Amount taken
    Not in the abstract
    For how long
    180 days (upper bound: Not in the abstract)
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at High, 2 steps down: risk of bias and imprecision
    1. Starts at High
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Moderatethe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
    3. Imprecision brought it down to Low324 participants is below the 400-participant optimal information size floorReported in the abstract
    4. Ends at Low2 steps down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness
    Inconsistency
    No high disagreement reported between the 7 studies it pooled

    Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.

    AI review could not confirm it — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and at least one check failed. The batch record names the check and quotes the sentence that caused the doubt. No person read it.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

What is still missing from these readings

  • Amount taken — Not in the abstract.

Something nobody wrote down is never a zero and never a guess.

Still to read for Potassium

One of the seven things on our list for Potassium has no reading here yet:

  • Potassium

Still to read means nobody here has got to it, not that it was tried and did nothing or that no research exists. A pairing on no list is not a gap: we never set out to read it.

Read next

  • Potassium

    Five other questions read for it

  • Liver, kidney and digestion

    22 questions read under it

  • Kidney Stone Risk

    No other ingredients read against it

    Alphabetical, and by nothing else.

This is a library, not advice. No recommendation, no dose, no diagnosis, no ranking. We never ask about your symptoms, and nothing here is tailored to you.