↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration, the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease study and the Cockcroft-Gault equation in patients with heart failure

Overview of attention for article published in Open Heart, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Comparison of the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration, the Modification of Diet in Renal Disease study and the Cockcroft-Gault equation in patients with heart failure
Published in
Open Heart, June 2017
DOI 10.1136/openhrt-2016-000568
Pubmed ID
Authors

Karolina Szummer, Marie Evans, Juan Jesus Carrero, Urban Alehagen, Ulf Dahlström, Lina Benson, Lars H Lund

Abstract

It is unknown how the creatinine-based renal function estimations differ for dose adjustment cut-offs and risk prediction in patients with heart failure. The renal function was similar with the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) (median 59 mL/min/1.73 m(2), IQR 42 to 77) and Modification of Diet in Renal Disease Study (MDRD) (59 mL/min/1.73 m(2), IQR 43 to 75) and slightly lower with the Cockcroft-Gault (CG) equation (57 mL/min, IQR 39 to 82). Across the commonly used renal function stages, the CKD-EPI and the MDRD classified patients into the same stage in 87.2% (kappa coefficient 0.83, p<0.001); the CKD-EPI and the CG equation agreed in 52.3% (kappa coefficient 0.39, p<0.001). Hence, a differing number of patients will receive dose adjustment depending on which formula is used as cut-off. The CG equation predicted worse prognosis better (c-statistics 0.740, 95% CI 0.734 to 0.746) than CKD-EPI (0.697, 95% CI 0.690 to 0.703, p<0.001) and MDRD (0.680, 95% CI 0.734 to 0.746). Using net reclassification improvement (NRI), the CG identified 12.8% more patients at higher risk of death as compared with the CKD-EPI equation. Patients registered in the Swedish Heart Failure Registry (n= 40 736) with standardised creatinine values between 2000 and 2012 had their renal function estimated with the CKD-EPI, the MDRD and the CG. Agreement between the formulas was compared for categories. Prediction of death was assessed with c-statistics and with NRI. The choice of renal function estimation formula has clinical implications and differing results at various cut-off levels. For prognosis, the CG predicts mortality better than the CKD-EPI and MDRD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Other 7 22%
Unknown 7 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 8 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 10 June 2017.
All research outputs
#15,742,933
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Open Heart
#894
of 1,183 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,341
of 331,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open Heart
#23
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,183 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.7. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 331,454 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.