↓ Skip to main content

Diagnosis and prognosis of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin for acute kidney injury with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, February 2016
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 (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (53rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
15 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
134 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
Diagnosis and prognosis of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin for acute kidney injury with sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Critical Care, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1212-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

An Zhang, Ying Cai, Peng-Fei Wang, Jian-Ning Qu, Zhen-Chun Luo, Xiao-Dong Chen, Bin Huang, Yi Liu, Wen-Qi Huang, Jing Wu, Yue-Hui Yin

Abstract

Neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) has been identified as an early biomarker for prediction of acute kidney injury (AKI). However, the utility of NGAL to predict the occurrence of AKI in septic patients remains controversial. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the evidence on diagnosis of sepsis AKI and the prediction of other clinical outcomes. The MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Wanfang, and CNKI databases were systematically searched up to August 19, 2015. Quality assessment was applied by using the Quality Assessment for Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy (QUADAS-2) tool. The diagnostic performance of NGAL for the prediction of AKI in sepsis was evaluated using pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), as well as summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROC). Fifteen studies with a total of 1,478 patients were included in the meta-analysis. For plasma NGAL, the pooled sensitivity and specificity with corresponding 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were 0.83 (95 % CI: 0.77 - 0.88) and 0.57 (95 % CI: 0.54 - 0.61), respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio (PLR) was 3.10 (95 % CI: 1.57 - 6.11) and the pooled negative likelihood ratio (NLR) was 0.24 (95 % CI: 0.13 - 0.43). The pooled DOR was 14.72 (95 % CI: 6.55 - 33.10) using a random effects model. The area under the curve (AUC) for SROC to summarize diagnostic accuracy was 0.86. For urine NGAL, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, and AUC values were 0.80 (95 % CI: 0.77 - 0.83), 0.80 (95 % CI: 0.77 - 0.83), 4.42 (95 % CI: 2.84 - 6.89), 0.21 (95 % CI: 0.13 - 0.35), 24.20 (95 % CI: 9.92 - 59.05) and 0.90, respectively. Significant heterogeneity was explored as a potential source. There was no notable publication bias observed across the eligible studies. NGAL for prediction of renal replacement therapy (RRT) and mortality associated with AKI in septic patients were also evaluated. To a certain extent, NGAL is not only an effective predictive factor for AKI in the process of sepsis, but also shows potential predictive value for RRT and mortality. However, future trials are needed to clarify this controversial issue.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users 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 134 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 133 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 13%
Researcher 18 13%
Other 13 10%
Student > Postgraduate 12 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 29 22%
Unknown 34 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 71 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 3%
Engineering 3 2%
Computer Science 3 2%
Other 10 7%
Unknown 37 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 07 July 2016.
All research outputs
#2,035,277
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,823
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31,858
of 311,612 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#38
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 311,612 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 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 53% of its contemporaries.