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 |
Can only histological evaluation determine the allocation of ECD kidneys?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Nephrology, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1471-2369-15-207 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carlo Grifasi, Vincenzo D’Alessandro, Maria D’Armiento, Severo Campione, Alessandro Scotti, Luigi Pelosio, Andrea Renda |
| Abstract |
There is a recent debate on the "transplantability" of ECD (Expanded Criteria Donors) kidneys and the selection criteria used to allocate them to single or double transplantation. Remuzzi et al. have defined a protocol incorporating pre-transplant donor biopsy to guide the use of older donor organs. They allocated organs as single or double transplants on the basis of histological findings. We aim to show the pros and cons of the only histological evaluation in the allocation of ECD kidneys, to compare the different experiences in United States and Europe and thus to discuss whether this tool should be used alone or included in a comprehensive clinical and histopathological evaluation. |
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% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 15% |
| Unknown | 6 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 62% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 5 | 15% |
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 December 2014.
All research outputs
#18,387,239
of 22,775,504 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nephrology
#1,867
of 2,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,548
of 352,836 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nephrology
#40
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,775,504 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,463 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 352,836 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.