↓ Skip to main content

Permissive hypofiltration

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (69th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Permissive hypofiltration
Published in
Critical Care, July 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11253
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lakhmir S Chawla, John A Kellum, Claudio Ronco

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a syndrome with a multitude of causes and is associated with high mortality and a permanent loss of renal function. Our current understanding of the most common causes of AKI is limited, and thus a silver bullet therapy remains elusive. A change in the approach to AKI that shifts away from the primary composite endpoint of death/dialysis, and instead focuses on improving survival and mitigating permanent renal damage, is likely to be more fruitful. We suggest that the current approach of augmenting renal function by increasing the renal blood flow or glomerular filtration rate during AKI may actually worsen outcomes. Analogous to the approach towards adult respiratory distress syndrome that limits ventilator-induced lung injury, we propose the concept of permissive hypofiltration. The primary goals of this approach are: resting the kidney by providing early renal replacement therapy, avoiding the potentially injurious adverse events that occur during AKI (for example, fluid overload, hypophosphatemia, hypothermia, and so forth), and initiating therapies focused on improving survival and mitigating permanent loss of kidney function.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 48 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 18%
Other 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 12%
Professor 4 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 12 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 32 64%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 14 28%
Attention Score in Context

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 26 September 2012.
All research outputs
#7,848,721
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,206
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,704
of 178,780 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#37
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
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 is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% 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 178,780 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 69% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 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 65% of its contemporaries.