↓ Skip to main content

A comparison of RIFLE with and without urine output criteria for acute kidney injury in critically ill patients

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, October 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
110 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A comparison of RIFLE with and without urine output criteria for acute kidney injury in critically ill patients
Published in
Critical Care, October 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11808
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kama A Wlodzimirow, Ameen Abu-Hanna, Mathilde Slabbekoorn, Robert AFM Chamuleau, Marcus J Schultz, Catherine SC Bouman

Abstract

The Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, and End-Stage Renal Disease (RIFLE) is a consensus-based classification system for diagnosing acute kidney insufficiency (AKI), based on serum creatinine (SCr) and urine output criteria (RIFLESCr+UO). The urine output criteria, however, are frequently discarded and many studies in the literature applied only the SCr criteria (RIFLESCr). We diagnosed AKI using both RIFLE methods and compared the effects on time to AKI diagnosis, AKI incidence and AKI severity. This was a prospective observational cohort study during four months in adult critically ill patients admitted to the ICU for at least 48 hours. During the first week patients were scored daily for AKI according to RIFLESCr+UO and RIFLESCr. We assessed urine output hourly and fluid balance daily. The baseline SCr was estimated if a recent pre-ICU admission SCr was unknown. Based on the two RIFLE methods for each patient we determined time to AKI diagnosis (AKI-0) and maximum RIFLE grade. We studied 260 patients. A pre-ICU admission SCr was available in 101 (39%) patients. The two RIFLE methods resulted in statistically significantly different outcomes for incidence of AKI, diagnosis of AKI for individual patients, distribution of AKI-0 and distribution of the maximum RIFLE grade. Discarding the RIFLE urine criteria for AKI diagnosis significantly underestimated the presence and grade of AKI on admission and during the first ICU week (P < 0,001) and significantly delayed the diagnosis of AKI (P < 0.001). Based on RIFLESCr 45 patients had no AKI on admission but subsequently developed AKI. In 24 of these patients (53%) AKI would have been diagnosed at least one day earlier if the RIFLE urine criteria had been applied. Mortality rate in the AKI population was 38% based on RIFLESCr and 24% based on RIFLESCr+UO (P = 0.02). The use of RIFLE without the urine criteria significantly underscores the incidence and grade of AKI, significantly delays the diagnosis of AKI and is associated with higher mortality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
United States 2 2%
Italy 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 77 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 15%
Other 11 13%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Student > Master 8 9%
Other 17 20%
Unknown 11 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 55 64%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Engineering 3 3%
Computer Science 3 3%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 11 13%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 August 2016.
All research outputs
#3,402,256
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,721
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,536
of 193,741 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#20
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 193,741 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 121 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.