↓ Skip to main content

Hyperphosphatemia in patients with ESRD: assessing the current evidence linking outcomes with treatment adherence

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nephrology, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
65 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Hyperphosphatemia in patients with ESRD: assessing the current evidence linking outcomes with treatment adherence
Published in
BMC Nephrology, July 2013
DOI 10.1186/1471-2369-14-153
Pubmed ID
Authors

Adrian Covic, Anjay Rastogi

Abstract

In recent years, the imbalance in phosphate homeostasis in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) has been the subject of much research. It appears that, while hyperphosphatemia may be a tangible indicator of deteriorating kidney function, lack of phosphate homeostasis may also be associated with the increased risk of cardiovascular events and mortality that has become a hallmark of ESRD. The need to maintain phosphorus concentrations within a recommended range is reflected in evidence-based guidelines. However, these do not reflect serum phosphorus concentrations achieved by most patients in clinical practice. Given this discrepancy, it is important to consider ways in which dietary restriction of phosphorus intake and, in particular, use of phosphate binders in patients with ESRD can be made more effective. Poor adherence is common in patients with ESRD and has been associated with inadequate control of serum phosphorus concentrations. Studies indicate that, among other factors, major reasons for poor adherence to phosphate binder therapy include high pill burden and patients' lack of understanding of their condition and its treatment. This review examines available evidence, seeking to understand fully the reasons underlying poor adherence in patients with ESRD and consider possible strategies for improving adherence in clinical practice.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 101 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 19%
Researcher 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Other 5 5%
Other 20 19%
Unknown 22 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 6%
Psychology 5 5%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 27 26%
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 23 July 2013.
All research outputs
#15,274,524
of 22,714,025 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nephrology
#1,438
of 2,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,163
of 196,607 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nephrology
#26
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,714,025 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,457 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 196,607 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.