https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2026.15172
Epidemiology of urolithiasis: between big data and field research
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Published: 31 March 2026
The combined analysis of Global Burden od Disease (GBD) data and traditional systematic reviews still appears to be the preferable approach for studying the epidemiology of urolithiasis, pending the resolution of the critical issues of GBD studies regarding the reliability and completeness of their sources, possible biases in data collection and data modeling.
Downloads
1. Tichenor M, Sridhar D. Metric partnerships: global burden of disease estimates within the World Bank, the World Health Organisation and the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Wellcome Open Res. 2019; 4:35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15011.1
2. Beaglehole R, Bonita R. Public Health at the Crossroads: Achievements and Prospects, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
3. Millum J. Should health research funding be proportional to the burden of disease? Politic Philos Econom 2023; 22:76-99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X221138729
4. GBD 2021 Urolithiasis Collaborators. The global, regional, andnational burden of urolithiasis in 204 countries and territories, 2000-2021: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study2021. EClinicalMedicine. 2024; 78:102924. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102924
5. GBD 2019 Diseases and Injuries Collaborators. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990-2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet. 2020; 396:1204-1222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30925-9
6. Tan S, Yuan D, Su H, et al. Prevalence of urolithiasis in China: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BJU Int. 2024; 133:34-43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.16179
7. Alhakamy M, AlShoaibi I, Abdo B, et al. Prevalence of urolithiasis in adults of the Eastern Mediterranean region: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Sci 2025; 36:176-184. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/us9.0000000000000076
8. Kassaw AB, Belete M, Assefa EM, Tareke AA. Prevalence and clinical patterns of urolithiasis in sub-saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BMC Nephrol. 2024; 25:334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-024-03780-y
9. Trinchieri A, Coppi F, Montanari E, et al. Increase in the prevalence of symptomatic upper urinary tract stones during the last ten years. Eur Urol. 2000; 37:23-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000020094
10. Hesse A, Brändle E, Wilbert D, et al. Study on the prevalence and incidence of urolithiasis in Germany comparing the years 1979 vs. 2000. Eur Urol. 2003; 44:709-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0302-2838(03)00415-9
11. Jour I, Lam A, Turney B. Urological stone disease: a 5-year update of stone management using Hospital Episode Statistics. BJU Int. 2022;130:364-369. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.15728
12. Bhutta ZA. Global Burden of Disease 2023: Challenges and opportunities for a growing collaboration. PLoS Med. 2025; 22:e1004838. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004838
13. Trinchieri A, Perletti G, Bhatti K, et al. Epidemiology of urolithiasis in Europe and Latin America: a systematic review. Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2026; 98:15173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/aiua.2026.15173
How to Cite
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.