↓ Skip to main content

An isolated elevation in blood urea level is not ‘uraemia’ and not an indication for renal replacement therapy in the ICU

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, November 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 (87th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
27 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
An isolated elevation in blood urea level is not ‘uraemia’ and not an indication for renal replacement therapy in the ICU
Published in
Critical Care, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13054-017-1868-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jack Mackenzie, Bobby Chacko

Abstract

The decision to initiate renal replacement therapy (RRT) and the optimal timing for commencement is a difficult decision faced by clinicians when treating acute kidney injury (AKI) in the intensive care setting. Without clinically significant ureamic symptoms or emergent indications (electrolyte abnormalities, volume overload) the timing of RRT initiation remains contentious and inconsistent across health providers. Current trends of initiating RRT in the ICU are often based on isolated blood urea levels without clear guidelines demonstrating an upper limit for treatment. Although the appropriate upper limit remains unclear, it is reasonable to conclude that a blood urea level less than 40 mmol/L is not in itself an indication for RRT, especially in the absence of supporting evidence of kidney impairment (anuria, elevated serum creatinine), presenting a welcome reminder to treat the patient and not a number.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 4 24%
Professor 3 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 12%
Other 2 12%
Researcher 2 12%
Other 4 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 47%
Unspecified 6 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 20 November 2017.
All research outputs
#1,033,174
of 13,616,341 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,051
of 4,319 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,176
of 311,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#95
of 169 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,616,341 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 4,319 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 311,666 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 169 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.