| Title |
The role of bone biopsy for the diagnosis of renal osteodystrophy: a short overview and future perspectives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Nephrology, July 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s40620-016-0339-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Catarina Carvalho, Catarina Moniz Alves, João Miguel Frazão |
| Abstract |
Chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients present specific bone and mineral metabolism disturbances, which account for important morbidity and mortality. The term renal osteodystrophy, classically used for the nomination of CKD-associated bone disorder, has been limited to the histologic description of bone lesions, requiring the use of bone biopsy. Biochemical markers and imaging tools do not adequately predict the complex bone changes that are observed in renal osteodystrophy. Parathyroid hormone, which is a universally used biomarker of bone turnover in clinical practice, lacks specificity and sensitivity. Therefore, tetracycline double-labelled transiliac bone biopsy, with bone histology and histomorphometric evaluation, remains the best clinical tool to discriminate bone turnover and to evaluate the other dimensions of renal osteodystrophy. This review will focus on the value of classic bone histomorphometric analysis of trabecular bone in CKD patients and unfold new perspectives of this diagnostic tool, including cortical bone evaluation and bone tissue immunohistochemistry. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 50% |
| United States | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 13% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 9% |
| Researcher | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 8 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 39% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 13% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 4% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 9% |
| Unknown | 6 | 26% |
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 24 August 2017.
All research outputs
#16,291,311
of 23,999,200 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nephrology
#623
of 1,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,526
of 371,455 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nephrology
#7
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,999,200 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 1,003 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 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 371,455 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 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.