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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Association between causes of peritoneal dialysis technique failure and all-cause mortality
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Scientific Reports, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1038/s41598-018-22335-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jenny H. C. Chen, David W. Johnson, Carmel Hawley, Neil Boudville, Wai H. Lim |
| Abstract |
Technique failure is a frequent complication of peritoneal dialysis (PD), but the association between causes of death-censored technique failure and mortality remains unclear. Using Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) registry data, we examined the associations between technique failure causes and mortality in all incident PD patients who experienced technique failure between 1989-2014. Of 4663 patients, 2415 experienced technique failure attributed to infection, 883 to inadequate dialysis, 836 to mechanical failure and 529 to social reasons. Compared to infection, the adjusted hazard ratios (HR) for all-cause mortality in the first 2 years were 0.83 (95%CI 0.70-0.98) for inadequate dialysis, 0.78 (95%CI 0.66-0.93) for mechanical failure and 1.46 (95%CI 1.24-1.72) for social reasons. The estimates from the competing risk models were similar. There was an interaction between age and causes of technique failure (pinteraction < 0.001), such that the greatest premature mortality was observed in patients aged >60 years post social-related technique failure. There was no association between causes of technique failure and mortality beyond 2 years. In conclusion, infection and social-related technique failure are associated with premature mortality within 2 years post technique failure. Future studies examining the associations may help to improve outcomes in these 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 Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 11% |
| Other | 10 | 26% |
| Unknown | 7 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 22 | 58% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 6 | 16% |
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 18 March 2018.
All research outputs
#15,495,840
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from Scientific Reports
#78,549
of 124,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,170
of 332,024 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scientific Reports
#2,461
of 3,843 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 124,386 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 332,024 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 3,843 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.