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 use of ex-vivo normothermic perfusion for the resuscitation and assessment of human kidneys discarded because of inadequate in situ perfusion
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12967-015-0691-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah A. Hosgood, A. D. Barlow, J. Dormer, M. L. Nicholson |
| Abstract |
Many kidneys are rejected for transplantation due to inadequate in situ perfusion during organ retrieval because of the risk of additional ischaemic injury and microvasculature thrombosis. This study describes the use of ex vivo normothermic perfusion (EVNP) for the resuscitation and assessment of human kidneys that were discarded after inadequate in situ perfusion. Twenty-two human kidneys were retrieved but then deemed unsuitable for transplantation, primarily due to inadequate in situ perfusion. After a period of static cold storage, kidneys were perfused for 60 min with an oxygenated red cell based solution at 36 °C. Nineteen out of 22 kidneys (86 %) were from DCD donors. During EVNP, kidneys were assessed and scored based on their macroscopic appearance, measures of renal blood flow and urine production. Kidneys were scored from 1 indicating the least injury to 5, indicating the worst. Twelve kidneys had an EVNP score of 1-2, 7 scored 3-4 and 3 kidneys scored 5. The EVNP score 5 kidneys had a low level of tubular function compared to the score 1-4 kidneys. Their perfusion parameters did not improve during EVNP and they were considered non-transplantable. There was no association between the histological evaluation and EVNP parameters. EVNP restores function ex vivo and enables an assessment of kidneys that have been declined for transplantation due to inadequate in situ perfusion. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | 1% |
| Australia | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 72 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 16% |
| Researcher | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 19% |
| Unknown | 17 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 24 | 32% |
| Engineering | 13 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 19 | 26% |
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 16 October 2015.
All research outputs
#15,348,897
of 22,830,751 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#2,236
of 3,994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,094
of 280,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#60
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,830,751 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 280,050 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.