↓ Skip to main content

Preoperative vascular access evaluation for haemodialysis patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Preoperative vascular access evaluation for haemodialysis patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007013.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sarah D Kosa, Ahmed A Al-Jaishi, Louise Moist, Charmaine E Lok

Abstract

Haemodialysis treatment requires reliable vascular access. Optimal access is provided via functional arteriovenous fistula (fistula), which compared with other forms of vascular access, provides superior long-term patency, requires few interventions, has low thrombosis and infection rates and cost. However, it has been estimated that between 20% and 60% of fistulas never mature sufficiently to enable haemodialysis treatment. Mapping blood vessels using imaging technologies before surgery may identify vessels that are most suitable for fistula creation. We compared the effect of conducting routine radiological imaging evaluation for vascular access creation preoperatively with standard care without routine preoperative vessel imaging on fistula creation and use. We searched Cochrane Kidney and Transplant's Specialised Register to 14 April 2015 through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled adult participants (aged ≥ 18 years) with chronic or end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) who needed fistulas (both before dialysis and after dialysis initiation) that compared fistula maturation rates relating to use of imaging technologies to map blood vessels before fistula surgery with standard care (no imaging). Two authors assessed study quality and extracted data. Dichotomous outcomes, including fistula creation, maturation and need for catheters at dialysis initiation, were expressed as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Continuous outcomes, such as numbers of interventions required to maintain patency, were expressed as mean differences (MD). We used the random-effects model to measure mean effects. Four studies enrolling 450 participants met our inclusion criteria. Overall risk of bias was judged to be low in one study, unclear in two, and high in one.There was no significant differences in the number of fistulas that were successfully created (4 studies, 433 patients: RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.28; I² = 76%); the number of fistulas that matured at six months (3 studies, 356 participants: RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.25; I² = 0%); number of fistulas that were used successfully for dialysis (2 studies, 286 participants: RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.28; I² = 0%); the number of patients initiating dialysis with a catheter (1 study, 214 patients: RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.04); and in the rate of interventions required to maintain patency (1 study, 70 patients: MD 14.70 interventions/1000 patient-days, 95% CI -7.51 to 36.91) between the use of preoperative imaging technologies compared with standard care (no imaging). Based on four small studies, preoperative vessel imaging did not improve fistula outcomes compared with standard care. Adequately powered prospective studies are required to fully answer this question.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Unknown 83 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 22%
Unspecified 13 15%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Other 24 28%
Unknown 1 1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 59%
Unspecified 17 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 11%
Engineering 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 2%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 1 1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 15 July 2018.
All research outputs
#3,026,449
of 13,226,211 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,678
of 10,529 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,006
of 247,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#184
of 266 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,226,211 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,529 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 247,983 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 266 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.