↓ Skip to main content

Acute kidney injury: short-term and long-term effects

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
78 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
155 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
262 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
Acute kidney injury: short-term and long-term effects
Published in
Critical Care, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1353-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

James F. Doyle, Lui G. Forni

Abstract

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is the most common cause of organ dysfunction in critically ill adults, with a single episode of AKI, regardless of stage, carrying a significant morbidity and mortality risk. Since the consensus on AKI nomenclature has been reached, data reflecting outcomes have become more apparent allowing investigation of both short- and long-term outcomes.Classically the short-term effects of AKI can be thought of as those reflecting an acute deterioration in renal function per se. However, the effects of AKI, especially with regard to distant organ function ("organ cross-talk"), are being elucidated as is the increased susceptibility to other conditions. With regards to the long-term effects, the consideration that outcome is a simple binary endpoint of dialysis or not, or survival or not, is overly simplistic, with the reality being much more complex.Also discussed are currently available treatment strategies to mitigate these adverse effects, as they have the potential to improve patient outcome and provide considerable economic health savings. Moving forward, an agreement for defining renal recovery is warranted if we are to assess and extrapolate the efficacy of novel therapies. Future research should focus on targeted therapies assessed by measure of long-term outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 78 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 262 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 259 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 36 14%
Researcher 33 13%
Student > Bachelor 29 11%
Student > Master 26 10%
Other 25 10%
Other 59 23%
Unknown 54 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 138 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 3%
Engineering 7 3%
Other 20 8%
Unknown 63 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 June 2019.
All research outputs
#930,073
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#708
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,736
of 369,846 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#28
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% 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 done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 369,846 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.