↓ Skip to main content

Evaluation of clinically available renal biomarkers in critically ill adults: a prospective multicenter observational study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, March 2017
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
18 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 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
Evaluation of clinically available renal biomarkers in critically ill adults: a prospective multicenter observational study
Published in
Critical Care, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1626-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yujun Deng, Ruibin Chi, Shenglong Chen, Heng Ye, Jie Yuan, Lin Wang, Yiling Zhai, Lu Gao, Danqing Zhang, Linhui Hu, Bo Lv, Yi Long, Cheng Sun, Xiaobing Yang, Xia Zou, Chunbo Chen

Abstract

Although serum cystatin C (sCysC), urinary N-acetyl-β-D-glucosaminidase (uNAG), and urinary albumin/creatinine ratio (uACR) are clinically available, their optimal combination for acute kidney injury (AKI) detection and prognosis prediction remains unclear. We aimed to assess the discriminative abilities of these biomarkers and their possible combinations for AKI detection and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality prediction in critically ill adults. A multicenter, prospective observational study was conducted in mixed medical-surgical ICUs at three tertiary care hospitals. One thousand eighty-four adult critically ill patients admitted to the ICUs were studied. We assessed the use of individual biomarkers (sCysC, uNAG, and uACR) measured at ICU admission and their combinations with regard to AKI detection and prognosis prediction. AUC-ROCs for sCysC, uNAG, and uACR were calculated for total AKI (0.738, 0.650, and 0.683, respectively), severe AKI (0.839, 0.706, and 0.771, respectively), and ICU mortality (0.727, 0.793, and 0.777, respectively). The panel of sCysC plus uNAG detected total and severe AKI with significantly higher accuracy than either individual biomarkers or the other two panels (uNAG plus uACR or sCysC plus uACR). For detecting total AKI, severe AKI, and ICU mortality at ICU admission, this panel yielded AUC-ROCs of 0.756, 0.863, and 0.811, respectively; positive predictive values of 0.71, 0.31, and 0.17, respectively; and negative predictive values of 0.81, 0.97, and 0.98, respectively. Moreover, this panel significantly contributed to the accuracy of the clinical models for AKI detection and ICU mortality prediction, as measured by the AUC-ROC, continuous net reclassification index, and incremental discrimination improvement index. The comparable performance of this panel was further confirmed with bootstrap internal validation. The combination of a functional marker (sCysC) and a tubular damage marker (uNAG) revealed significantly superior discriminative performance for AKI detection and yielded additional prognostic information on ICU mortality.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 10%
Researcher 6 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 18 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 21 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 11 September 2018.
All research outputs
#3,241,937
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,635
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,990
of 321,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#43
of 74 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 321,098 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 74 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.