↓ Skip to main content

Clinical relevance of procalcitonin and C-reactive protein as infection markers in renal impairment: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, November 2014
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
11 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Clinical relevance of procalcitonin and C-reactive protein as infection markers in renal impairment: a cross-sectional study
Published in
Critical Care, November 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13054-014-0640-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ji Hyeon Park, Do Hee Kim, Hye Ryoun Jang, Min-Ji Kim, Sin-Ho Jung, Jung Eun Lee, Wooseong Huh, Yoon-Goo Kim, Dae Joong Kim, Ha Young Oh

Abstract

IntroductionAlthough the clinical application of procalcitonin (PCT) as an infection marker in patients with impaired renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <60 ml/min) has been increasing recently, it is unclear whether PCT is more accurate than C-reactive protein (CRP). We investigated the clinical value of CRP and PCT based on renal function.MethodsFrom November 2008 to July 2011, a total of 493 patients who simultaneously underwent CRP and PCT tests were enrolled. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and characteristics of both markers were analyzed according to infection severity and renal function.ResultsIn patients with impaired renal function, the area under the ROC curve was 0.876 for CRP and 0.876 for PCT. In patients with infection, CRP levels differed depending on whether the infection was localized, septic, or severely septic, whereas PCT levels were higher in patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. In patients without infection, CRP did not correlate with eGFR, while PCT was negatively correlated with eGFR.ConclusionThis study demonstrates that CRP is accurate for predicting infection in patients with impaired renal function. The study suggests that in spite of its higher cost, PCT is not superior to CRP as an infection marker in terms of diagnostic value.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 3%
Unknown 31 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 19%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Other 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 8 25%
Unknown 3 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 69%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Chemistry 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 4 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 25 November 2014.
All research outputs
#1,969,795
of 12,075,223 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,561
of 3,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,874
of 269,073 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#71
of 178 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,075,223 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,876 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 269,073 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 178 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 59% of its contemporaries.