↓ Skip to main content

Protein-controlled versus restricted protein versus low protein diets in managing patients with non-dialysis chronic kidney disease: a single centre experience in Australia

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nephrology, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Protein-controlled versus restricted protein versus low protein diets in managing patients with non-dialysis chronic kidney disease: a single centre experience in Australia
Published in
BMC Nephrology, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12882-016-0341-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maria Chan

Abstract

Nutrition has been an important part of medical management in patients with chronic kidney disease for more than a century. Since the 1970s, due to technological advances in renal replacement therapy (RRT) such as dialysis and transplantation, the importance of nutrition intervention in non-dialysis stages has diminished. In addition, it appears that there is a lack of high-level evidence to support the use of diet therapy, in particular the use of low protein diets to slow down disease progression. However, nutrition abnormalities are known to emerge well before dialysis is required and are associated with poor outcomes post-commencing dialysis. To improve clinical outcomes it is prudent to incorporate practice research and quality audits into routine care, as part of the continuous clinical practice improvement process. This article summarises the experience of and current practices in a metropolitan tertiary teaching hospital in Sydney, Australia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 2%
Unknown 57 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 22%
Student > Bachelor 9 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Lecturer 2 3%
Other 2 3%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 20 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 16 28%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 20 34%
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 14 September 2016.
All research outputs
#18,471,305
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nephrology
#1,884
of 2,481 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#244,523
of 322,146 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nephrology
#27
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,481 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 322,146 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.