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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Comparison of creatinine and cystatin C based eGFR in the estimation of glomerular filtration rate in Indigenous Australians: The eGFR Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Biochemistry, November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2016.11.024 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Elizabeth LM Barr, Louise J Maple-Brown, Federica Barzi, Jaquelyne T Hughes, George Jerums, Elif I Ekinci, Andrew G Ellis, Graham RD Jones, Paul D Lawton, Cherian Sajiv, Sandawana W Majoni, Alex DH Brown, Wendy E Hoy, Kerin O'Dea, Alan Cass, Richard J MacIsaac |
| Abstract |
The Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation that combines creatinine and cystatin C is superior to equations that include either measure alone in estimating glomerular filtration rate (GFR). However, whether cystatin C can provide any additional benefits in estimating GFR for Indigenous Australians, a population at high risk of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is unknown. Using a cross-sectional analysis from the eGFR Study of 654 Indigenous Australians at high risk of ESKD, eGFR was calculated using the CKD-EPI equations for serum creatinine (eGFRcr), cystatin C (eGFRcysC) and combined creatinine and cystatin C (eGFRcysC+cr). Reference GFR (mGFR) was determined using a non-isotopic iohexol plasma disappearance technique over 4h. Performance of each equation to mGFR was assessed by calculating bias, % bias, precision and accuracy for the total population, and according to age, sex, kidney disease, diabetes, obesity and c-reactive protein. Data were available for 542 participants (38% men, mean [sd] age 45 [14] years). Bias was significantly greater for eGFRcysC (15.0mL/min/1.73m(2); 95%CI 13.3-16.4, p<0.001) and eGFRcysC+cr (10.3; 8.8-11.5, p<0.001) compared to eGFRcr (5.4; 3.0-7.2). Accuracy was lower for eGFRcysC (80.3%; 76.7-83.5, p<0.001) but not for eGFRcysC+cr (91.9; 89.3-94.0, p=0.29) compared to eGFRcr (90.0; 87.2-92.4). Precision was comparable for all equations. The performance of eGFRcysC deteriorated across increasing levels of c-reactive protein. Cystatin C based eGFR equations may not perform well in populations with high levels of chronic inflammation. CKD-EPI eGFR based on serum creatinine remains the preferred equation in Indigenous Australians. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 39 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Unknown | 12 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 28% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 12 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 25 August 2021.
All research outputs
#8,535,472
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Biochemistry
#578
of 2,317 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,035
of 416,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Biochemistry
#6
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,317 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. 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 416,155 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.