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 |
Improving the outcome of kidney transplantation by ameliorating renal ischemia reperfusion injury: lost in translation?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Translational Medicine, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12967-016-0767-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
T. C. Saat, E. K. van den Akker, J. N. M. IJzermans, F. J. M. F. Dor, R. W. F. de Bruin |
| Abstract |
Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice in patients with end stage renal disease. During kidney transplantation ischemia reperfusion injury (IRI) occurs, which is a risk factor for acute kidney injury, delayed graft function and acute and chronic rejection. Kidneys from living donors show a superior short- and long-term graft survival compared with deceased donors. However, the shortage of donor kidneys has resulted in expansion of the donor pool by using not only living- and brain death donors but also kidneys from donation after circulatory death and from extended criteria donors. These grafts are associated with an increased sensitivity to IRI and decreased graft outcome due to prolonged ischemia and donor comorbidity. Therefore, preventing or ameliorating IRI may improve graft survival. Animal experiments focus on understanding the mechanism behind IRI and try to find methods to minimize IRI either before, during or after ischemia. This review evaluates the different experimental strategies that have been investigated to prevent or ameliorate renal IRI. In addition, we review the current state of translation to the clinical setting. Experimental research has contributed to the development of strategies to prevent or ameliorate IRI, but promising results in animal studies have not yet been successfully translated to clinical use. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 100 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 15 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 13 | 13% |
| Researcher | 12 | 12% |
| Other | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 12% |
| Unknown | 25 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 27% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 14 | 14% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 6% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 4% |
| Other | 11 | 11% |
| Unknown | 30 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 February 2016.
All research outputs
#14,182,150
of 22,840,638 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Translational Medicine
#1,771
of 3,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#205,254
of 394,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Translational Medicine
#26
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,840,638 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,995 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 394,766 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 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 63% of its contemporaries.