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 |
Rationale and design of the myocardial microinjury and cardiac remodeling extension study in the sodium lowering in dialysate trial (Mac-SoLID study)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Nephrology, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2369-15-120 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joanna Leigh Dunlop, Alain Charles Vandal, Janak Rashme de Zoysa, Ruvin Sampath Gabriel, Lukas Mathias Gerber, Imad Adbi Haloob, Christopher John Hood, John Hamilton Irvine, Philip James Matheson, David Owen Ross McGregor, Kannaiyan Samuel Rabindranath, John Benedict William Schollum, David John Semple, Mark Roger Marshall |
| Abstract |
The Sodium Lowering in Dialysate (SoLID) trial is an ongoing a multi-center, prospective, randomised, single-blind (assessor), controlled, parallel assignment clinical trial, enrolling 96 home and self-care hemodialysis (HD) patients from 7 centers in New Zealand. The trial will evaluate the hypothesis that lower dialysate [Na+] during HD results in lower left ventricular (LV) mass. Since it's inception, observational evidence has suggested increased mortality risk with lower dialysate [Na+], possibly due to exacerbation of intra-dialytic hypotension and subsequent myocardial micro-injury. The Myocardial Micro-injury and Cardiac Remodeling Extension Study in the Sodium Lowering In Dialysate Trial (Mac-SoLID study) aims to determine whether lower dialysate [Na+] results in (i) increased levels of high-sensitivity Troponin T (hsTnT), a well-established marker of intra-dialytic myocardial micro-injury in HD populations, and (ii) increased fixed LV segmental wall motion abnormalities, a marker of recurrent myocardial stunning and micro-injury, and (iii) detrimental changes in LV geometry due to maladaptive homeostatic mechanisms. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
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 > Master | 9 | 26% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 15% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 11 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 9% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 6% |
| Engineering | 2 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Unknown | 11 | 32% |
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 21 July 2014.
All research outputs
#17,723,634
of 22,758,963 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nephrology
#1,698
of 2,462 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,482
of 228,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nephrology
#42
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,758,963 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,462 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 228,570 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 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.