↓ Skip to main content

Chronic kidney disease in the neonate: etiologies, management, and outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, October 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Chronic kidney disease in the neonate: etiologies, management, and outcomes
Published in
Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, October 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.siny.2016.09.003
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Neonatal chronic kidney disease (CKD) occurs with an estimated incidence of 1 in 10,000 live births, whereas the incidence of neonatal end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is about 7.1 per million age-related population. The most frequent etiologies are renal hypoplasia/dysplasia, posterior urethral valves, and other congenital anomalies of the kidney and urinary tract. Other etiologies include polycystic kidney disease, cortical necrosis, and renal vascular thrombosis. Management of CKD focuses primarily on replacing renal functions such as erythropoietin, 1,25-hydroxylation of vitamin D, electrolyte homeostasis/excretion, and, in ESRD, waste product removal. Nutrition and growth monitoring are of utmost importance, with the majority of ESRD infants requiring gastrostomy tube for nutrition. Outcomes of neonates (<31 days) started on dialysis continue to improve, with large cohort studies showing 2-3-year survival rates of 79-81%. As in other neonatal disciplines, the gestational age and size limits for safe provision of dialysis continue to decrease.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

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.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 12%
Researcher 12 12%
Other 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 14 14%
Unknown 39 39%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 41%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 4 4%
Unknown 39 39%
Attention Score in Context

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 20 February 2017.
All research outputs
#22,515,098
of 27,548,404 outputs
Outputs from Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine
#582
of 694 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#242,501
of 314,825 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,548,404 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 694 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 314,825 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.