↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients: a propensity analysis

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Efficacy of renal replacement therapy in critically ill patients: a propensity analysis
Published in
Critical Care, December 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11905
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christophe Clec'h, Michaël Darmon, Alexandre Lautrette, Frank Chemouni, Elie Azoulay, Carole Schwebel, Anne-Sylvie Dumenil, Maïté Garrouste-Orgeas, Dany Goldgran-Toledano, Yves Cohen, Jean-François Timsit

Abstract

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Although renal replacement therapy (RRT) is a common procedure in critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI), its efficacy remains uncertain. Patients who receive RRT usually have higher mortality rates than those who do not. However, many differences exist in severity patterns between patients with and those without RRT and available results are further confounded by treatment selection bias since no consensus on indications for RRT has been reached so far. Our aim was to account for these biases to accurately assess RRT efficacy, with special attention to RRT timing. METHODS: We performed a propensity analysis using data of the French longitudinal prospective multicenter Outcomerea database. Two propensity scores for RRT were built to match patients who received RRT to controls who did not despite having a close probability of receiving the procedure. AKI was defined according to RIFLE criteria. The association between RRT and hospital mortality was examined through multivariate conditional logistic regression analyses to control for residual confounding. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine the impact of RRT timing. RESULTS: Among the 2846 study patients, 545 (19%) received RRT. Crude mortality rates were higher in patients with than in those without RRT (38% vs 17.5%, P < 0.001). After matching and adjustment, RRT was not associated with a reduced hospital mortality. The two propensity models yielded concordant results. CONCLUSIONS: In our study population, RRT failed to reduce hospital mortality. This result emphasizes the need for randomized studies comparing RRT to conservative management in selected ICU patients, with special focus on RRT timing.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 1%
France 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 62 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 22%
Other 9 13%
Student > Postgraduate 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 69%
Arts and Humanities 1 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 1%
Computer Science 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 15 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 22 December 2012.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,468
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,428
of 288,482 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#77
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 288,482 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.