↓ Skip to main content

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Renal Transplant Dysfunction

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of the American College of Radiology, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Renal Transplant Dysfunction
Published in
Journal of the American College of Radiology, May 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.jacr.2017.02.034
Pubmed ID
Authors

Panel on Urologic Imaging:, Myles T. Taffel, Paul Nikolaidis, Michael D. Beland, M. Donald Blaufox, Vikram S. Dogra, Stanley Goldfarb, John L. Gore, Howard J. Harvin, Marta E. Heilbrun, Matthew T. Heller, Gaurav Khatri, Glenn M. Preminger, Andrei S. Purysko, Andrew D. Smith, Zhen J. Wang, Robert M. Weinfeld, Jade J. Wong-You-Cheong, Erick M. Remer, Mark E. Lockhart

Abstract

Renal transplantation is the treatment of choice in patients with end-stage renal disease because the 5-year survival rates range from 72% to 99%. Although graft survival has improved secondary to the introduction of newer immunosuppression drugs and the advancements in surgical technique, various complications still occur. Ultrasound is the first-line imaging modality for the evaluation of renal transplants in the immediate postoperative period and for long-term follow-up. In addition to depicting many of the potential complications of renal transplantation, ultrasound can also guide therapeutic interventions. Nuclear medicine studies, CT, and MRI are often helpful as complementary examinations for specific indications. Angiography remains the reference standard for vascular complications and is utilized to guide nonsurgical intervention. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer-reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 19%
Researcher 5 14%
Other 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Postgraduate 3 8%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 31%
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 05 September 2017.
All research outputs
#17,289,387
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of the American College of Radiology
#2,680
of 3,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#206,650
of 324,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of the American College of Radiology
#90
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 3,479 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 324,557 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.