Claudio Ronco, Zaccaria Ricci, Daniel De Backer, John A Kellum, Fabio S Taccone, Michael Joannidis, Peter Pickkers, Vincenzo Cantaluppi, Franco Turani, Patrick Saudan, Rinaldo Bellomo, Olivier Joannes-Boyau, Massimo Antonelli, Didier Payen, John R Prowle, Jean-Louis Vincent
Abstract
Renal replacement therapies (RRTs) represent a cornerstone in the management of severe acute kidney injury. This area of intensive care and nephrology has undergone significant improvement and evolution in recent years. Continuous RRTs have been a major focus of new technological and treatment strategies. RRT is being used increasingly in the intensive care unit, not only for renal indications but also for other organ-supportive strategies. Several aspects related to RRT are now well established, but others remain controversial. In this review, we review the available RRT modalities, covering technical and clinical aspects. We discuss several controversial issues, provide some practical recommendations, and where possible suggest a research agenda for the future.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
4
1%
Other
21
6%
Unknown
69
21%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 October 2017.
All research outputs
#880,507
of 26,588,416 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#629
of 6,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,014
of 399,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#32
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,588,416 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,747 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 399,404 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
