↓ Skip to main content

Renal replacement therapy in acute kidney injury: controversy and consensus

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
64 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
174 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
325 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
Renal replacement therapy in acute kidney injury: controversy and consensus
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-0850-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudio Ronco, Zaccaria Ricci, Daniel De Backer, John A Kellum, Fabio S Taccone, Michael Joannidis, Peter Pickkers, Vincenzo Cantaluppi, Franco Turani, Patrick Saudan, Rinaldo Bellomo, Olivier Joannes-Boyau, Massimo Antonelli, Didier Payen, John R Prowle, Jean-Louis Vincent

Abstract

Renal replacement therapies (RRTs) represent a cornerstone in the management of severe acute kidney injury. This area of intensive care and nephrology has undergone significant improvement and evolution in recent years. Continuous RRTs have been a major focus of new technological and treatment strategies. RRT is being used increasingly in the intensive care unit, not only for renal indications but also for other organ-supportive strategies. Several aspects related to RRT are now well established, but others remain controversial. In this review, we review the available RRT modalities, covering technical and clinical aspects. We discuss several controversial issues, provide some practical recommendations, and where possible suggest a research agenda for the future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 64 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 325 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 4 1%
Mexico 3 <1%
Brazil 3 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 308 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 63 19%
Other 47 14%
Researcher 38 12%
Student > Master 29 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 25 8%
Other 72 22%
Unknown 51 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 204 63%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 3%
Engineering 9 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 1%
Other 21 6%
Unknown 62 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. 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 25 October 2017.
All research outputs
#821,643
of 25,386,051 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#614
of 6,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,635
of 392,823 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#33
of 470 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,386,051 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,546 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 done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 392,823 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 470 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.