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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Optimal timing of renal replacement therapy initiation in acute kidney injury: the elephant felt by the blindmen?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-017-1713-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chih-Chung Shiao, Tao-Min Huang, Herbert D. Spapen, Patrick M. Honore, Vin-Cent Wu |
| Abstract |
Renal replacement therapy (RRT) is a key component in the management of severe acute kidney injury (AKI) in critically ill patients. Many cohort studies, meta-analyses, and two recent large randomized prospective trials which evaluated the relationship between the timing of RRT initiation and patient outcome remain inconclusive due to substantial differences in study design, patient population, AKI definition, and RRT indication. A cause-specific diagnosis of AKI based on current staging criteria plus a sensitive biomarker (panel) that allows creating a homogeneous study population is definitely needed to assess the impact of early versus late initiation of RRT on patient outcome. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 37 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 2 | 5% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 5% |
| India | 2 | 5% |
| Spain | 2 | 5% |
| Mexico | 2 | 5% |
| Ireland | 1 | 3% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 3% |
| Dominican Republic | 1 | 3% |
| France | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 14% |
| Unknown | 18 | 49% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 21 | 57% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 11 | 30% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 8% |
| Scientists | 2 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 10 | 16% |
| Researcher | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 12 | 20% |
| Unknown | 20 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 54% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 2% |
| Chemistry | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 21 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 11 September 2019.
All research outputs
#1,700,184
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,498
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,954
of 330,053 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#30
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 330,053 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 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 69% of its contemporaries.