↓ Skip to main content

Prediction of clinical outcomes after kidney transplantation from deceased donors with acute kidney injury: a comparison of the KDIGO and AKIN criteria

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nephrology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Prediction of clinical outcomes after kidney transplantation from deceased donors with acute kidney injury: a comparison of the KDIGO and AKIN criteria
Published in
BMC Nephrology, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12882-017-0461-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeong Ho Kim, Young Soo Kim, Min Seok Choi, Young Ok Kim, Sun Ae Yoon, Ji-Il Kim, In Sung Moon, Bum Soon Choi, Cheol Whee Park, Chul Woo Yang, Yong-Soo Kim, Byung Ha Chung

Abstract

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is frequently detected in deceased donors (DDs), and it could be associated with adverse clinical outcomes in corresponding kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). In this regard, we sought to identify which criteria is better between the KDIGO and AKIN criteria for the diagnosis of AKI in DDs in the prediction of clinical outcomes after kidney transplantation (KT). Two hundred eighty-five cases of deceased donor kidney transplantation (DDKT) were included. We divided them into three groups; the non-AKI by both KDIGO and AKIN criteria group (n = 120), the AKI by KDIGO only group (n = 61), and the AKI by both criteria group (n = 104) according to the diagnosis of AKI using the KDIGO and AKIN criteria in the corresponding 205 DDs. We compared the development of delayed graft function (DGF), the change in allograft function, the allograft survival among the three groups. The incidence of DGF was significantly higher in the AKI by KDIGO only and the AKI by both criteria groups than in the non-AKI by both criteria group (P < 0.05 each). But no difference was detected between the AKI by KDIGO only group and the AKI by both criteria group (P > 0.05). Therefore, the KDIGO criteria had a better predictive value for DGF occurrence than the AKIN criteria (Area under the curve = 0.72 versus 0.63, P < 0.05) in Receiver Operation Characteristic analysis. On comparison of allograft function, the AKI by KDIGO only and the AKI by both criteria groups showed a significantly deteriorating pattern by 6 months after KT in comparison with the non-AKI by both criteria group (P < 0.05). However, the differences disappeared at 1 year from KT and long-term allograft survival did not differ among the three groups. AKI stage either by KDIGO or AKIN in DDs did not affect long-term allograft survival in corresponding KTRs as well. The KDIGO criteria may be more useful for predicting DGF than the AKIN criteria. However, AKI or AKI stage by either criteria in DDs failed to affect long-term allograft outcomes in KTRs.

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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 6 18%
Researcher 5 15%
Student > Postgraduate 5 15%
Other 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 65%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Earth and Planetary Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 6 18%
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 07 February 2017.
All research outputs
#19,292,491
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nephrology
#1,953
of 2,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#315,639
of 423,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nephrology
#46
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,550 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. 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 423,324 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.