| Title |
Contrast-induced acute kidney injury and renal support for acute kidney injury: a KDIGO summary (Part 2)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, February 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc11455 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Norbert Lameire, John A Kellum, for the KDIGO AKI Guideline Work Group |
| Abstract |
ABSTRACT: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common and serious problem affecting millions and causing death and disability for many. In 2012, Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes completed the first ever international multidisciplinary clinical practice guideline for AKI. The guideline is based on evidence review and appraisal, and covers AKI definition, risk assessment, evaluation, prevention, and treatment. Two topics, contrast-induced AKI and management of renal replacement therapy, deserve special attention because of the frequency in which they are encountered and the availability of evidence. Recommendations are based on systematic reviews of relevant trials. Appraisal of the quality of the evidence and the strength of recommendations followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Limitations of the evidence are discussed and a detailed rationale for each recommendation is provided. This review is an abridged version of the guideline and provides additional rationale and commentary for those recommendation statements that most directly impact the practice of critical care. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 217 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 3 | 1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Czechia | 1 | <1% |
| Russia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 208 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 34 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 33 | 15% |
| Researcher | 32 | 15% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 16 | 7% |
| Student > Master | 16 | 7% |
| Other | 58 | 27% |
| Unknown | 28 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 149 | 69% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 6 | 3% |
| Engineering | 5 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 13 | 6% |
| Unknown | 31 | 14% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 09 February 2013.
All research outputs
#4,835,465
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,282
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,802
of 291,530 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#34
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 291,530 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.