↓ Skip to main content

Consenso Delphi sobre el diagnóstico y manejo de la dislipidemia en pacientes con enfermedad renal crónica: análisis post-hoc del estudio DIANA

Overview of attention for article published in Nefrología (Madrid), November 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 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.
Title
Consenso Delphi sobre el diagnóstico y manejo de la dislipidemia en pacientes con enfermedad renal crónica: análisis post-hoc del estudio DIANA
Published in
Nefrología (Madrid), November 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.nefro.2016.07.002
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aleix Cases Amenós, Juan Pedro-Botet Montoya, Vicente Pascual Fuster, Vivencio Barrios Alonso, Xavier Pintó Sala, Juan F. Ascaso Gimilio, Jesús Millán Nuñez-Cortés, Adalberto Serrano Cumplido

Abstract

This post hoc study analysed the perception of the relevance of chronic kidney disease (CKD) in dyslipidaemia screening and the choice of statin among primary care physicians (PCPs) and other specialists through a Delphi questionnaire. The questionnaire included 4blocks of questions concerning dyslipidaemic patients with impaired carbohydrate metabolism. This study presents the results of the impact of CKD on screening and the choice of statin. Of the 497 experts included, 58% were PCPs and 42% were specialists (35, 7% were nephrologists). There was consensus by both PCPs and specialists, with no difference between PCPs and specialists, that CKD patients should undergo a dyslipidaemia screening and that the screening should be part of routine clinical practice. However, there was no consensus in considering the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (although there was consensus among PCPs and nephrologists), or considering albuminuria when selecting a statin, or in determining albuminuria during follow-up after having initiated treatment with statins (although there was consensus among the nephrologists). The consensus to analyse the lipid profile in CKD patients suggests acknowledgment of the high cardiovascular risk of this condition. However, the lack of consensus in considering renal function or albuminuria, both when selecting a statin and during follow-up, suggests a limited knowledge of the differences between statins in relation to CKD. Thus, it would be advisable to develop a guideline/consensus document on the use of statins in CKD.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 5%
Unknown 20 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 19%
Student > Postgraduate 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Student > Master 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 7 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 14%
Psychology 1 5%
Unknown 9 43%
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 26 October 2016.
All research outputs
#23,320,957
of 25,988,468 outputs
Outputs from Nefrología (Madrid)
#14
of 20 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#280,210
of 319,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nefrología (Madrid)
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,988,468 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 20 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 0.6. This one scored the same or higher as 6 of them.
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 319,761 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.