↓ Skip to main content

Identification of Major Adverse Kidney Events Within the Electronic Health Record

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Systems, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
Title
Identification of Major Adverse Kidney Events Within the Electronic Health Record
Published in
Journal of Medical Systems, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s10916-016-0528-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthew W. Semler, Todd W. Rice, Andrew D. Shaw, Edward D. Siew, Wesley H. Self, Avinash B. Kumar, Daniel W. Byrne, Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, Jonathan P. Wanderer

Abstract

Acute kidney injury is common among critically ill adults and is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. The Major Adverse Kidney Events by 30 days (MAKE30) composite of death, new renal replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction is recommended as a patient-centered outcome for pragmatic trials involving acute kidney injury. Accurate electronic detection of the MAKE30 endpoint using data within the electronic health record (EHR) could facilitate the use of the EHR in large-scale kidney injury research. In an observational study using prospectively collected data from 200 admissions to a single medical intensive care unit, we tested the performance of electronically-extracted data in identifying the MAKE30 composite compared to the reference standard of two-physician manual chart review. The incidence of MAKE30 on manual-review was 16 %, which included 8.5 % for in-hospital mortality, 3.5 % for new renal replacement therapy, and 8.5 % for persistent renal dysfunction. There was strong agreement between the electronic and manual assessment of MAKE30 (98.5 % agreement [95 % CI 96.5-100.0 %]; kappa 0.95 [95 % CI 0.87-1.00]; P < 0.001), with only three patients misclassified by electronic assessment. Performance of the electronic MAKE30 assessment was similar among patients with and without CKD and with and without a measured serum creatinine in the 12 months prior to hospital admission. In summary, accurately identifying the MAKE30 composite outcome using EHR data collected as a part of routine care appears feasible.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 82 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 18%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Master 9 11%
Other 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 21 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 34%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 23 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 06 October 2022.
All research outputs
#4,444,606
of 24,576,899 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Systems
#138
of 1,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,308
of 344,597 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Systems
#8
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,576,899 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,225 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 344,597 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.