↓ Skip to main content

Kinetic estimated glomerular filtration rate in critically ill patients: beyond the acute kidney injury severity classification system

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, November 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 (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
25 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 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
Kinetic estimated glomerular filtration rate in critically ill patients: beyond the acute kidney injury severity classification system
Published in
Critical Care, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1873-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Flávio de Oliveira Marques, Saulo Aires Oliveira, Priscila Ferreira de Lima e Souza, Wandervânia Gomes Nojoza, Maiara da Silva Sena, Taynara Muniz Ferreira, Bruno Gabriele Costa, Alexandre Braga Libório

Abstract

Although significant advances have been achieved in acute kidney injury (AKI) research following its classification, potential pitfalls can be identified in clinical practice. The nonsteady-state (kinetic) estimated glomerular filtration rate (KeGFR) could add clinical and prognostic information in critically ill patients beyond the current AKI classification system. This was a retrospective analysis using data from the Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care II project. The KeGFR was calculated during the first 7 days of intensive care unit (ICU) stay in 13,284 patients and was correlated with outcomes. In general, there was not a good agreement between AKI severity and the worst achieved KeGFR. The stepwise reduction in the worst achieved KeGFR conferred an incremental risk of death, rising from 7.0% (KeGFR > 70 ml/min/1.73 m(2)) to 27.8% (KeGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m(2)). This stepwise increment in mortality remained in each AKI severity stage. For example, patients with AKI stage 3 who maintained KeGFR had a mortality rate of 16.5%, close to those patients with KeGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m(2) but no AKI; otherwise, mortality increased to 40% when both AKI stage 3 and KeGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m(2) were present. In relation to another outcome-renal replacement therapy (RRT)-patients with the worst achieved KeGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m(2) and KDIGO stage 1/2 had a rate of RRT of less than 10%. However, this rate was 44% when both AKI stage 3 and a worst KeGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73 m(2) were observed. This interaction between AKI and KeGFR was also present when looking at long-term survival. Both the AKI classification system and KeGFR are complementary to each other. Assessing both AKI stage and KeGFR can help to identify patients at different risk levels in clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users 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 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 8 15%
Researcher 6 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Master 4 8%
Other 11 21%
Unknown 14 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 45%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 16 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 22 December 2017.
All research outputs
#2,646,983
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,280
of 6,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#55,872
of 447,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#59
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,613 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 447,714 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.