↓ Skip to main content

Advance care planning for haemodialysis patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

1 policy source
22 tweeters
1 Facebook page


24 Dimensions

Readers on

231 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.
Advance care planning for haemodialysis patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010737.pub2
Pubmed ID

Chi Eung Danforn Lim, Rachel WC Ng, Nga Chong Lisa Cheng, Maria Cigolini, Cannas Kwok, Frank Brennan


End-stage kidney disease (ESKD) is a chronic, debilitative and progressive illness that may need interventions such as dialysis, transplantation, dietary and fluid restrictions. Most patients with ESKD will require renal replacement therapy, such as kidney transplantation or maintenance dialysis. Advance care planning traditionally encompass instructions via living wills, and concern patient preferences about interventions such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation and feeding tubes, or circumstances around assigning surrogate decision makers. Most people undergoing haemodialysis are not aware of advance care planning and few patients formalise their wishes as advance directives and of those who do, many do not discuss their decisions with a physician. Advance care planning involves planning for future healthcare decisions and preferences of the patient in advance while comprehension is intact. It is an essential part of good palliative care that likely improves the lives and deaths of haemodialysis patients. The objective of this review was to determine whether advance care planning in haemodialysis patients, compared with no or less structured forms of advance care planning, can result in fewer hospital admissions or less use of treatments with life-prolonging or curative intent, and if patient's wishes were followed at end-of-life. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 27 June 2016 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. We also searched the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Social Work Abstracts (OvidSP). All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs (RCTs in which allocation to treatment was obtained by alternation, use of alternate medical records, date of birth or other predictable methods) looking at advance care planning versus no form of advance care planning in haemodialysis patients was considered for inclusion without language restriction. Data extraction was carried out independently by two authors using standard data extraction forms. Studies reported in non-English language journals were translated before assessment. Where more than one publication of one study exists, reports were grouped together and the publication with the most complete data was used in the analyses. Where relevant outcomes are only published in earlier versions these data were used. Any discrepancies between published versions were highlighted. Non-randomised controlled studies were excluded. We included two studies (three reports) that involved 337 participants which investigated advance care planning for people with ESKD. Neither of the included studies reported outcomes relevant to this review. Study quality was assessed as suboptimal. We found sparse data that were assessed at suboptimal quality and therefore we were unable to formulate conclusions about whether advance care planning can influence numbers of hospital admissions and treatment required by people with ESKD, or if patients' advance care directives were followed at end-of-life. Further well designed and adequately powered RCTs are needed to better inform patient and clinical decision-making about advance care planning and advance directives among people with ESKD who are undergoing dialysis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 231 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 228 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 43 19%
Student > Bachelor 27 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 11%
Researcher 22 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 8%
Other 40 17%
Unknown 55 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 45 19%
Psychology 11 5%
Social Sciences 11 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 2%
Other 24 10%
Unknown 66 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 03 October 2019.
All research outputs
of 17,361,274 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 271,126 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,361,274 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 271,126 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.