↓ Skip to main content

Implications of augmented renal clearance in critically ill patients

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Reviews Nephrology, July 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
161 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 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
Implications of augmented renal clearance in critically ill patients
Published in
Nature Reviews Nephrology, July 2011
DOI 10.1038/nrneph.2011.92
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew A. Udy, Jason A. Roberts, Jeffrey Lipman

Abstract

Critically ill patients can display markedly abnormal physiological parameters compared with those in ward-based or ambulatory settings. As a function of both the underlying inflammatory state and the interventions provided, these patients manifest substantial changes in their cardiovascular and renal function that are not always immediately discernable using standard diagnostic tests. Impaired renal function is well documented among such individuals; however, even patients with normal serum creatinine concentrations might display elevated glomerular filtration rates, a phenomenon we have termed augmented renal clearance (ARC). This finding has important ramifications for the accurate dosing of renally eliminated drugs, given that most pharmaceutical dosing regimens were validated outside the critical care environment. Empirical approaches to dosing are unlikely to achieve therapeutic drug concentrations in patients with ARC, placing them at risk of suboptimal drug exposure and potential treatment failure. With an increasing appreciation of this phenomenon, alternative dosing strategies will need to be investigated.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 99 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 18%
Other 15 15%
Student > Postgraduate 11 11%
Student > Master 9 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 8%
Other 20 20%
Unknown 20 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 50%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 17 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Chemistry 2 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 <1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 25 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 April 2013.
All research outputs
#17,548,753
of 25,728,855 outputs
Outputs from Nature Reviews Nephrology
#1,547
of 1,998 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,573
of 130,882 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Reviews Nephrology
#11
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,728,855 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,998 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.6. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 130,882 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.