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 |
The effect of prolonged of warm ischaemic injury on renal function in an experimental ex vivo normothermic perfusion system
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12967-015-0571-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah A Hosgood, K Shah, M Patel, M L Nicholson |
| Abstract |
Donation after circulatory death (DCD) kidney transplants inevitably sustain a degree of warm ischaemic injury, which is manifested clinically as delayed graft function. The aim of this study was to define the effects of prolonged periods of warm ischaemic injury on renal function in a normothermic haemoperfused kidney model. Porcine kidneys were subjected to 15, 60, 90 (n = 6 per group) and 120 min (n = 4) of in situ warm ischaemia (WI) and then retrieved, flushed with cold preservation fluid and stored in ice for 2 h. Kidneys then underwent 3 h of normothermic reperfusion with a whole blood-based perfusate using an ex vivo circuit developed from clinical grade cardiopulmonary bypass technology. Creatinine clearance, urine output and fractional excretion of sodium deteriorated sequentially with increasing warm time. Renal function was severely compromised after 90 or 120 min of WI but haemodynamic, metabolic and histological parameters demonstrated the viability of kidneys subjected to prolonged warm ischaemia. Isolated kidney perfusion using a warm, oxygenated, red cell-based perfusate allows an accurate ex vivo assessment of the potential for recovery from warm ischaemic injury. Prolonged renal warm ischaemic injury caused a severe decrement in renal function but was not associated with tissue necrosis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 10% |
| Researcher | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 11 | 26% |
| Unknown | 7 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 17 | 40% |
| Engineering | 5 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 14% |
| Unknown | 6 | 14% |
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 30 June 2015.
All research outputs
#18,148,462
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#2,817
of 4,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,029
of 263,962 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#93
of 100 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 263,962 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 100 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.