↓ Skip to main content

Contraindications to kidney transplantation: uneven grounds?

Overview of attention for article published in Transplantation Research, July 2015
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 (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Contraindications to kidney transplantation: uneven grounds?
Published in
Transplantation Research, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13737-015-0024-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bryce A. Kiberd, Meteb M AlBugami, Romuald Panek, Karthik Tennankore

Abstract

Determining eligibility for a kidney transplant is an important decision. Practice guidelines define contraindications to transplantation; however many are not evidence based. Canadian guidelines recommend that patients unlikely to survive the wait period not be evaluated. The purpose of this study was to evaluate what proportion of patients with a contraindication would survive the wait time. Consecutive incident dialysis patients (January 2006 to December 2012) with a contraindication, defined using Canadian guidelines, were studied. Mortality rates were determined for each individual contraindication. Theoretical survival to the median wait time to transplantation was calculated. Of 746 incident patients, 435 (58 %) were deemed to have a contraindication at dialysis start. Nearly 80 % had a contraindication with a high mortality rate (dementia, multisystem disease, etc.). Patients with high mortality rates were less likely to survive the wait list than be transplanted. Patients with non-adherence, obesity, and potentially reversible disease had relatively low mortality rates, were more likely to survive, and possibly be transplanted at a time with the prospect of a better outcome. This study gives some credence that many patients with a contraindication are not likely to benefit. A better framework of defining contraindications is needed to allow better decision-making.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 17%
Student > Master 5 14%
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 6 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 8%
Psychology 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 6 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 02 April 2021.
All research outputs
#4,394,678
of 23,940,793 outputs
Outputs from Transplantation Research
#7
of 39 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#52,918
of 267,318 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Transplantation Research
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,940,793 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 39 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one scored the same or higher as 32 of them.
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 267,318 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them