↓ Skip to main content

Blood pressure and acute kidney injury

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, February 2017
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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
29 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Blood pressure and acute kidney injury
Published in
Critical Care, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1611-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ryota Sato, Sarah Kyuragi Luthe, Michitaka Nasu, Ryota Sato, Sarah Kyuragi Luthe, Michitaka Nasu

Abstract

Maintaining the optimal blood pressure is an important aspect of preventing acute kidney injury (AKI), especially for vasopressor-dependent patients. Although mean arterial pressure (MAP) has played an important role in previous trials for prevention of AKI, there is little evidence that MAP actually reflects organ perfusion. In fact, several studies have suggested that perfusion pressure, including diastolic perfusion pressure and mean perfusion pressure (MPP) and calculated with central venous pressure (CVP), may be more useful than the widely used MAP to help prevent AKI. This emphasizes the importance of maintaining diastolic arterial pressure and avoiding elevation of CVP to prevent AKI in patients with sepsis or invasive surgery. To achieve this, further investigation regarding titrated fluid therapy and vasopressors is warranted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Israel 1 2%
Unknown 63 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 19%
Student > Master 11 17%
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Other 8 13%
Researcher 4 6%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 9 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 14 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 20 February 2017.
All research outputs
#1,547,545
of 19,789,905 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,429
of 5,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,668
of 382,009 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#9
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,789,905 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 382,009 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.