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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Optimal Mode of clearance in critically ill patients with Acute Kidney Injury (OMAKI) - a pilot randomized controlled trial of hemofiltration versus hemodialysis: a Canadian Critical Care Trials Group project
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc11835 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ron Wald, Jan O Friedrich, Sean M Bagshaw, Karen EA Burns, Amit X Garg, Michelle A Hladunewich, Andrew A House, Stephen Lapinsky, David Klein, Neesh I Pannu, Karen Pope, Robert M Richardson, Kevin Thorpe, Neill KJ Adhikari |
| Abstract |
ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Among critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) needing continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), the effect of convective (via continuous venovenous hemofiltration [CVVH]) versus diffusive (via continuous venovenous hemodialysis [CVVHD]) solute clearance on clinical outcomes is unclear. Our objective was to evaluate the feasibility of comparing these two modes in a randomized trial. METHODS: This was a multicenter open-label parallel-group pilot randomized trial of CVVH versus CVVHD. Using concealed allocation, we randomized critically ill adults with AKI and hemodynamic instability to CVVH or CVVHD, with a prescribed small solute clearance of 35 mL/kg/hour in both arms. The primary outcome was trial feasibility, defined by randomization of >25% of eligible patients, delivery of >75% of the prescribed CRRT dose, and follow-up of >95% of patients to 60 days. A secondary analysis using a mixed-effects model examined the impact of therapy on illness severity, defined by sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, over the first week. RESULTS: We randomized 78 patients (mean age 61.5 years; 39% women; 23% with chronic kidney disease; 82% with sepsis). Baseline SOFA scores (mean 15.9, SD 3.2) were similar between groups. We recruited 55% of eligible patients, delivered >80% of the prescribed dose in each arm, and achieved 100% follow-up. SOFA tended to decline more over the first week in CVVH recipients (-0.8, 95% CI -2.1, +0.5) driven by a reduction in vasopressor requirements. Mortality (54% CVVH; 55% CVVHD) and dialysis dependence in survivors (24% CVVH; 19% CVVHD) at 60 days were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that a large trial comparing CVVH to CVVHD would be feasible. There is a trend toward improved vasopressor requirements among CVVH-treated patients over the first week of treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00675818. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | 7% |
| United States | 2 | 7% |
| Malaysia | 2 | 7% |
| India | 2 | 7% |
| Brazil | 2 | 7% |
| Argentina | 1 | 4% |
| Mauritius | 1 | 4% |
| Canada | 1 | 4% |
| Taiwan | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Unknown | 9 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 17 | 63% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 33% |
| Scientists | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 97 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 20 | 20% |
| Other | 13 | 13% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 11 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 8% |
| Other | 20 | 20% |
| Unknown | 20 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 62 | 61% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | <1% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 9 | 9% |
| Unknown | 20 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 06 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,551,925
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,207
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,060
of 202,159 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#10
of 121 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th 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 66% 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 202,159 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.