↓ Skip to main content

Quality indicators in continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) care in critically ill patients: protocol for a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Quality indicators in continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) care in critically ill patients: protocol for a systematic review
Published in
Systematic Reviews, July 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13643-015-0088-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oleksa Rewa, Pierre-Marc Villeneuve, Dean T. Eurich, Henry T Stelfox, RT Noel Gibney, Lisa Hartling, Robin Featherstone, Sean M Bagshaw

Abstract

Renal replacement therapy is increasingly utilized in the intensive care unit (ICU), of which continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is most common. Despite CRRT being a relatively resource-intensive and expensive technology, there remains wide practice variation in its application. This systematic review will appraise the evidence for quality indicators (QIs) of CRRT care in critically ill patients. Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and databases from the National Information Center of Health Services Research and Health Care Technology will be searched for original studies involving QIs in CRRT. Gray literature sources will be searched for technical reports, practice guidelines, and conference proceedings. Websites of relevant organizations will be identified, and industry leaders in the development and marketing of CRRT technology and non-profit organizations that represent key opinion leads in the use of CRRT will be contacted. We will search the Agency of Healthcare Research and Quality National Quality Measures Clearinghouse for CRRT-related QIs. Studies will be included if they contain quality measures, occur in critically ill patients, and are associated with CRRT. Analysis will be primarily descriptive. Each QI will be evaluated for importance, scientific acceptability, usability, and feasibility using the four criteria proposed by the United States Strategic Framework Board for a National Quality Measurement and Reporting System. Finally, QIs will be appraised for their potential operational characteristics, for their potential to be integrated into electronic medical records, and on their affordability, if applicable. This systematic review will comprehensively identify and synthesize QIs in CRRT. The results of this study will fuel the development of an inventory of essential QIs to support the appropriate, safe, and efficient delivery of CRRT in critically ill patients. PROSPERO CRD42015015530.

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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Italy 1 1%
Unknown 83 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 16%
Other 11 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Master 9 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 19 22%
Unknown 16 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Psychology 4 5%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 19 22%
Attention Score in Context

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 July 2015.
All research outputs
#15,201,283
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#1,583
of 2,048 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#144,701
of 264,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#14
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,048 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 264,600 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.