↓ Skip to main content

Fluid status evaluation by inferior vena cava diameter and bioimpedance spectroscopy in pediatric chronic hemodialysis

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Nephrology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Fluid status evaluation by inferior vena cava diameter and bioimpedance spectroscopy in pediatric chronic hemodialysis
Published in
BMC Nephrology, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12882-017-0793-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xavier Torterüe, Laurène Dehoux, Marie-Alice Macher, Olivier Niel, Thérésa Kwon, Georges Deschênes, Julien Hogan

Abstract

Evaluation of patient's dry weight remains challenging in chronic hemodialysis (HD) especially in children. Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) measurement was reported useful to assess fluid overload both in adults and children. We performed a monocentric prospective study to evaluate the relation between predialytic IVC diameter measurements and hydration status evaluated by physicians and bioimpedance spectroscopy (BIS) and between IVC measurements and persistent hypertension. Forty-eight HD sessions in 16 patients were analyzed. According to physicians, patients were overhydrated in 84.5% of dialysis sessions, 20.8% according to BIS, and 0%, 4.1% and 20.8% according to IVC inspiratory, expiratory and collapsibility index reference curves respectively. There was no correlation between relative overhydration evaluated by BIS and IVC measurements z-scores (p = 0.20). Patients whose blood pressure normalized after HD had a more dilated maximal IVC diameter before dialysis session than patients with persistent hypertension (median - 0.07SD [-0.8; 0.88] versus -1.61SD [-2.18; -0.74] (p = 0.03)) with an optimal cut-off of -0.5 SD. In our study, IVC measurement is not reliable to assess fluid overload in children on HD and was not correlated with extracellular fluid volume assessed by BIS measurements. However, IVC measurements might be of interest in differentiating volume-dependant hypertension from volume-independant hypertension.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 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 %
Other 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Lecturer 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 11 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 12%
Sports and Recreations 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 3 9%
Unknown 11 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 March 2019.
All research outputs
#8,251,027
of 24,862,965 outputs
Outputs from BMC Nephrology
#971
of 2,691 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,800
of 453,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Nephrology
#20
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,862,965 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,691 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 453,323 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 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 62% of its contemporaries.