| Title |
Circulating markers of bone turnover
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nephrology, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40620-017-0408-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marc G. Vervloet, Vincent M. Brandenburg, on behalf of CKD-MBD working group of ERA-EDTA |
| Abstract |
Renal osteodystrophy is a feature of chronic kidney disease (CKD), with increasing prevalence as CKD progresses. This bone disease is responsible for major morbidity, including fractures, and a deterioration in the quality of life and its sequelae. Circulating biomarkers of renal osteodystrophy typically indicate bone turnover, but not other features of bone, like bone volume, mineralization, quality or strength. Bone turnover can be considered to be primarily a reflection of bone cell activity, in particular that of osteoblasts and osteoclasts. Since current treatments for bone disease usually target cellular activity, biomarkers are considered to be able to contribute to the decision-making for treatment and its follow-up. In CKD, one has to consider the impact of a diminished clearance of biomarkers or their altered metabolism, both potentially limiting its clinical use. Here, several aspects of the most frequently used biomarkers of bone turnover are reviewed, with an emphasis on the specific situation represented by CKD. This review is based on the overview lecture at the symposium held in Amsterdam, September 23, 2016: "The Bone In CKD", organized by the CKD-MBD working group of ERA-EDTA. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 66 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 12% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 9% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 16 | 24% |
| Unknown | 18 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 30% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 5% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 10 | 15% |
| Unknown | 20 | 30% |
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 01 August 2017.
All research outputs
#19,516,978
of 23,999,200 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nephrology
#755
of 1,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#240,579
of 312,788 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nephrology
#17
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,999,200 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,003 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% 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 312,788 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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.