↓ Skip to main content

Inclusion and definition of acute renal dysfunction in critically ill patients in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, April 2018
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 (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
30 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Inclusion and definition of acute renal dysfunction in critically ill patients in randomized controlled trials: a systematic review
Published in
Critical Care, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-2009-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rogerio da Hora Passos, Joao Gabriel Rosa Ramos, André Gobatto, Juliana Caldas, Etienne Macedo, Paulo Benigno Batista

Abstract

In evidence-based medicine, multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating treatment benefits and ensuring the effectiveness of interventions. Patient-centered outcomes, such as mortality, are most often the preferred evaluated outcomes. While there is currently agreement on how to classify renal dysfunction in critically ill patients , the application frequency of this new classification system in RCTs has not previously been evaluated. In this study, we aim to assess the definition of renal dysfunction in multicenter RCTs involving critically ill patients that included mortality as a primary endpoint. A comprehensive search was conducted for publications reporting multicenter randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adult patients in intensive care units (ICUs) that included mortality as a primary outcome. MEDLINE and PUBMED were queried for relevant articles in core clinical journals published between May 2004 and December 2017. Of 418 articles reviewed, 46 multicenter RCTs with a primary endpoint related to mortality were included. Thirty-six (78.3%) of the trial reports provided information on renal function in the participants. Only seven articles (15.2%) included mean or median serum creatinine levels, mean creatinine clearance or estimated glomerular filtration rates. Sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score was the most commonly used definition of renal dysfunction (20 studies; 43.5%). Risk, Injury, Failure, Loss, End-stage renal disease (RIFLE), Acute Kidney Injury Network (AKIN) and Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria were used in five (10.9%) trials. In thirteen trials (28.3%), no renal dysfunction criteria were reported. Only one trial excluded patients with renal dysfunction, and it used urinary output or need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) as criteria for this diagnosis. The presence of renal dysfunction was included as a baseline patient characteristic in most RCTs. The RIFLE, AKIN and KDIGO classification systems were infrequently used; renal dysfunction was generally defined using the SOFA score.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 12%
Other 7 12%
Student > Master 7 12%
Researcher 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 15 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 38%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Engineering 2 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 7 12%
Unknown 15 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 01 October 2019.
All research outputs
#2,327,133
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,047
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,809
of 339,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#59
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 339,945 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.