↓ Skip to main content

Gut–kidney crosstalk in septic acute kidney injury

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
65 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
56 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
90 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
Gut–kidney crosstalk in septic acute kidney injury
Published in
Critical Care, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-2040-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jingxiao Zhang, Ghada Ankawi, Jian Sun, Kumar Digvijay, Yongjie Yin, Mitchell H. Rosner, Claudio Ronco

Abstract

Sepsis is the leading cause of acute kidney injury (AKI) in the intensive care unit (ICU). Septic AKI is a complex and multifactorial process that is incompletely understood. During sepsis, the disruption of the mucus membrane barrier, a shift in intestinal microbial flora, and microbial translocation may lead to systemic inflammation, which further alters host immune and metabolic homeostasis. This altered homeostasis may promote and potentiate the development of AKI. As part of this vicious cycle, when AKI develops, the clearance of inflammatory mediators and metabolic products is decreased. This will lead to further gut injury and breakdown in mucous membrane barriers. Thus, changes in the gut during sepsis can initiate and propagate septic AKI. This deleterious gut-kidney crosstalk may be a potential target for therapeutic maneuvers. This review analyses the underlying mechanisms in gut-kidney crosstalk in septic AKI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 65 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 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 90 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 13%
Other 12 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 19 21%
Unknown 23 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 27 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 38. 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 August 2020.
All research outputs
#1,090,950
of 25,529,543 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#871
of 6,580 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,713
of 339,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#29
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,529,543 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,580 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 done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 339,352 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 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 70% of its contemporaries.