| Title |
Comparison of various scoring methods for the diagnosis of protein–energy wasting in hemodialysis patients
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Geriatric Nephrology and Urology, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11255-013-0638-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
A. As’habi, H. Tabibi, B. Nozary-Heshmati, M. Mahdavi-Mazdeh, M. Hedayati |
| Abstract |
The present study was designed to determine the cutoff points for the diagnosis of mild-to-moderate and severe protein-energy wasting (PEW) based on dialysis malnutrition score (DMS) and malnutrition inflammation score (MIS), and the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (LR(+)) and negative likelihood ratio (LR(-)) of DMS and MIS in comparison with subjective global assessment (SGA) in hemodialysis (HD) patients. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 62 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 12 | 19% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 15% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 12 | 19% |
| Unknown | 16 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 23 | 37% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 13 | 21% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 18 | 29% |
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 09 January 2014.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Geriatric Nephrology and Urology
#846
of 1,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,815
of 319,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Geriatric Nephrology and Urology
#12
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 1,493 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 319,280 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.