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 |
Applications for detection of acute kidney injury using electronic medical records and clinical information systems: workgroup statements from the 15th ADQI Consensus Conference
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease, February 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40697-016-0100-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Matthew T. James, Charles E. Hobson, Michael Darmon, Sumit Mohan, Darren Hudson, Stuart L. Goldstein, Claudio Ronco, John A. Kellum, Sean M. Bagshaw, For the Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) Consensus Group |
| Abstract |
Electronic medical records and clinical information systems are increasingly used in hospitals and can be leveraged to improve recognition and care for acute kidney injury. This Acute Dialysis Quality Initiative (ADQI) workgroup was convened to develop consensus around principles for the design of automated AKI detection systems to produce real-time AKI alerts using electronic systems. AKI alerts were recognized by the workgroup as an opportunity to prompt earlier clinical evaluation, further testing and ultimately intervention, rather than as a diagnostic label. Workgroup members agreed with designing AKI alert systems to align with the existing KDIGO classification system, but recommended future work to further refine the appropriateness of AKI alerts and to link these alerts to actionable recommendations for AKI care. The consensus statements developed in this review can be used as a roadmap for development of future electronic applications for automated detection and reporting of AKI. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 States | 3 | 60% |
| France | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 77 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 14 | 18% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 10% |
| Professor | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 17 | 22% |
| Unknown | 19 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 35 | 44% |
| Computer Science | 6 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 4% |
| Other | 9 | 11% |
| Unknown | 19 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 19 October 2018.
All research outputs
#8,261,756
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease
#304
of 620 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,841
of 312,292 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease
#8
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 620 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% 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 312,292 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 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 60% of its contemporaries.