↓ Skip to main content

Peritoneal dialysis as the first dialysis treatment option initially unplanned

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian Journal of Nephrology, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#46 of 475)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (80th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Peritoneal dialysis as the first dialysis treatment option initially unplanned
Published in
Brazilian Journal of Nephrology, January 2017
DOI 10.5935/0101-2800.20170077
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Most patients with stage 5 CKD start RRT of unplanned manner. Unplanned dialysis, also known as urgent start, may be defined as hemodialysis (HD) started without permanent vascular access, i.e., using a central venous catheter (CVC), or as peritoneal dialysis (PD) started within seven days after implantation of the catheter, without family training. Although few studies have evaluated the PD as an immediate treatment option for patients starting urgent RRT, theirs results suggest that it is a feasible and safe alternative, with infectious complications and survival similar to patients treated with unplanned HD. Given the importance of the social role of urgent start of dialysis and the lack of studies on the subject, this narrative review aims to analyze and synthesize knowledge in published articles, preferably, from last five years in order to unify information and facilitate future studies.

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 47 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 47 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Other 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Researcher 3 6%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 22 47%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 17%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 22 47%
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 15 March 2018.
All research outputs
#6,401,922
of 34,376,207 outputs
Outputs from Brazilian Journal of Nephrology
#46
of 475 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,520
of 462,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Brazilian Journal of Nephrology
#4
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,376,207 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 475 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 462,465 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.