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 |
Hemofiltration or hemodialysis for acute kidney injury?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, August 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc11450 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Achim Jörres |
| Abstract |
ABSTRACT: The optimal choice of modality for acute renal replacement therapy is unclear at present. Diffusive therapy (hemodialysis) removes small solutes mainly, whereas convective therapies (hemofiltration and hemodiafiltration) may also eliminate larger molecules such as myoglobin or cytokines. Conversely, convective therapies might predispose patients to filter clotting and thus increased costs. A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials could not find evidence for clinical benefits of either modality. Thus, the decision on renal replacement therapy modality still is based on the clinical status of the individual patient, the expertise of the medical and nursing staff, and local circumstances and availability. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 32 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 8 | 24% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 12% |
| Other | 3 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 12% |
| Unknown | 7 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 6 | 18% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 12% |
| Chemical Engineering | 3 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 6% |
| Unknown | 6 | 18% |
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 10 August 2012.
All research outputs
#20,656,161
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,970
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,067
of 185,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#89
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% 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 185,637 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.