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 |
Estimating glomerular filtration rate: Performance of the CKD-EPI equation over time in patients with type 2 diabetes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Diabetes & its Complications, September 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2015.08.025 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Anna J. Wood, Leonid Churilov, Nayomi Perera, David Thomas, Aurora Poon, Richard J. MacIsaac, George Jerums, Elif I. Ekinci |
| Abstract |
To assess the performance of the Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI) equation at baseline and longitudinally in people with type 2 diabetes. Adults with type 2 diabetes attending Austin Health, Melbourne, with≥3 prospective GFR measurements were included in this retrospective study. Plasma disappearance rate of DTPA (diethylene-triamine-penta-acetic acid) was used to calculate measured GFR (mGFR) and compared to estimated GFR (eGFR). The agreement between mGFR and eGFR was estimated using Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC). 152 patients had a median of 4 (IQR: 3, 5) mGFR measurements over a period of 11years (IQR: 9, 12). The difference between mGFR and eGFR increased proportionally to the magnitude of the GFR, increasing by 0.2ml/min/1.73m(2) for every 1ml/min/1.73m(2) increase in mGFR, indicative of proportional bias. At lower mGFR levels, eGFR overestimated mGFR, and at higher mGFR levels, eGFR underestimated mGFR. There was a significant association between LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, HbA1c, diastolic blood pressure and the difference between mGFR and eGFR. The CKD-EPI formula underestimates mGFR and the rate of decline of mGFR in patients with type 2 diabetes with an mGFR greater than 60ml/min/1.73m(2). The association between LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, HbA1c, diastolic blood pressure and the difference between mGFR and eGFR warrants further study. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 33 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 12% |
| Researcher | 4 | 12% |
| Librarian | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 9 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 39% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 10 | 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 14 September 2015.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Diabetes & its Complications
#859
of 1,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#167,483
of 279,885 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Diabetes & its Complications
#19
of 30 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 1,330 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 279,885 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.