↓ Skip to main content

Protection of remote ischemic preconditioning against acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
29 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
Title
Protection of remote ischemic preconditioning against acute kidney injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Critical Care, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13054-016-1272-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jiachang Hu, Shaopeng Liu, Ping Jia, Xialian Xu, Nana Song, Ting Zhang, Rongyi Chen, Xiaoqiang Ding

Abstract

Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) is a promising approach to preventing acute kidney injury (AKI), but its efficacy is controversial. A systematic review of 30 randomized controlled trials was conducted to investigate the effects of RIPC on the incidence and outcomes of AKI. Random effects model meta-analyses and meta-regressions were used to generate summary estimates and explore sources of heterogeneity. The primary outcome was incidence of AKI and hospital mortality. The total pooled incidence of AKI in the RIPC group was 11.5 %, significantly less than the 23.3 % incidence in the control group (P = 0.009). Subgroup analyses indicated that RIPC significantly reduced the incidence of AKI in the contrast-induced AKI (CI-AKI) subgroup from 13.5 % to 6.5 % (P = 0.000), but not in the ischemia/reperfusion-induced AKI (IR-AKI) subgroup (from 29.5 % to 24.7 %, P = 0.173). Random effects meta-regression indicated that RIPC tended to strengthen its renoprotective effect (q = 3.95, df = 1, P = 0.047) in these trials with a higher percentage of diabetes mellitus. RIPC had no significant effect on the incidence of stages 1-3 AKI or renal replacement therapy, change in serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), hospital or 30-day mortality, or length of hospital stay. But RIPC significantly increased the minimum eGFR in the IR-AKI subgroup (P = 0.006) compared with the control group. In addition, the length of ICU stay in the RIPC group was significantly shorter than in the control group (2.6 vs 2.0 days, P = 0.003). We found strong evidence to support the application of RIPC to prevent CI-AKI, but not IR-AKI.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 12 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 13%
Researcher 10 11%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Other 28 29%
Unknown 14 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 9%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 17 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 December 2016.
All research outputs
#2,171,544
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,921
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,618
of 313,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#61
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its peers.
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 313,432 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.