↓ Skip to main content

Citrate for continuous renal replacement therapy: safer, better and cheaper

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
Citrate for continuous renal replacement therapy: safer, better and cheaper
Published in
Critical Care, December 2014
DOI 10.1186/s13054-014-0661-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Heleen M Oudemans-van Straaten

Abstract

In a previous issue of Critical Care, Schilder and colleagues report the results of their multicenter trial (Citrate Anticoagulation Versus Systemic Heparinization; CASH) comparing regional anticoagulation with citrate to heparin anticoagulation. They found that citrate was safer, more efficacious and cheaper than heparin. In contrast to the largest previous trial, however, a survival benefit was not found, which was the primary endpoint of the CASH trial. Different explanations are possible, including selection bias and a lower severity of disease. Selection bias was high: only 6% of the renal replacement therapy patients were included (versus 56% in the previous trial) and exclusion was 56% for increased risk of bleeding, 2.5 times as frequent as in the previous trial. Thus, the trial with survival benefit apparently included more patients with risk of bleeding and also more severely ill patients and these are the groups that potentially benefit the most from citrate. Nevertheless, the CASH trial is the third large randomized trial showing superiority of citrate over heparin, supporting the recommendation of citrate as first choice anticoagulant.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 1 5%
Unknown 21 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 5 23%
Researcher 5 23%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 73%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Psychology 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Unknown 2 9%

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 04 December 2014.
All research outputs
#2,663,243
of 5,033,220 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#1,874
of 2,698 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,371
of 175,779 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#124
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,033,220 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,698 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% 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 175,779 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.