↓ Skip to main content

An external validation of models to predict the onset of chronic kidney disease using population-based electronic health records from Salford, UK

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, July 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 (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
patent
3 patents
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 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
An external validation of models to predict the onset of chronic kidney disease using population-based electronic health records from Salford, UK
Published in
BMC Medicine, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0650-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Paolo Fraccaro, Sabine van der Veer, Benjamin Brown, Mattia Prosperi, Donal O’Donoghue, Gary S. Collins, Iain Buchan, Niels Peek

Abstract

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is a major and increasing constituent of disease burdens worldwide. Early identification of patients at increased risk of developing CKD can guide interventions to slow disease progression, initiate timely referral to appropriate kidney care services, and support targeting of care resources. Risk prediction models can extend laboratory-based CKD screening to earlier stages of disease; however, to date, only a few of them have been externally validated or directly compared outside development populations. Our objective was to validate published CKD prediction models applicable in primary care. We synthesised two recent systematic reviews of CKD risk prediction models and externally validated selected models for a 5-year horizon of disease onset. We used linked, anonymised, structured (coded) primary and secondary care data from patients resident in Salford (population ~234 k), UK. All adult patients with at least one record in 2009 were followed-up until the end of 2014, death, or CKD onset (n = 178,399). CKD onset was defined as repeated impaired eGFR measures over a period of at least 3 months, or physician diagnosis of CKD Stage 3-5. For each model, we assessed discrimination, calibration, and decision curve analysis. Seven relevant CKD risk prediction models were identified. Five models also had an associated simplified scoring system. All models discriminated well between patients developing CKD or not, with c-statistics around 0.90. Most of the models were poorly calibrated to our population, substantially over-predicting risk. The two models that did not require recalibration were also the ones that had the best performance in the decision curve analysis. Included CKD prediction models showed good discriminative ability but over-predicted the actual 5-year CKD risk in English primary care patients. QKidney, the only UK-developed model, outperformed the others. Clinical prediction models should be (re)calibrated for their intended uses.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 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 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 5%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 103 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 14%
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 6%
Student > Bachelor 7 6%
Other 26 24%
Unknown 18 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 12%
Computer Science 8 7%
Social Sciences 8 7%
Mathematics 4 4%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 23 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 13 September 2023.
All research outputs
#1,838,417
of 25,468,708 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,297
of 4,026 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,079
of 370,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#16
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,468,708 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,026 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% 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 370,225 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 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.