↓ Skip to main content

Bicarbonate versus lactate solutions for acute peritoneal dialysis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 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
Bicarbonate versus lactate solutions for acute peritoneal dialysis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007034.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zheng Gang Bai, KeHu Yang, Jin Hui Tian, Bin Ma, Yali Liu, Lei Jiang, Jiying Tan, Tian Xi Liu, Iris Chi

Abstract

The high mortality rate among critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) remains an unsolved problem in intensive care medicine, despite the use of renal replacement therapy (RRT). Increasing evidence from clinical studies in adults and children suggests that the new peritoneal dialysis (PD) fluids may allow for better long-term preservation of peritoneal morphology and function. Formation of glucose degradation products (GDPs) can be reduced and even avoided with the use of newer "biocompatible" solutions. However, it is still unclear if there are any differences in using conventional (lactate) solutions compared with low GDP (bicarbonate) solutions for acute PD.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 3%
Canada 2 3%
Slovenia 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 66 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 18%
Student > Bachelor 9 13%
Researcher 9 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 12 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 57%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 18 25%

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 24 October 2014.
All research outputs
#10,024,037
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,644
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,224
of 229,305 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#201
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% 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 229,305 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.