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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Pulmonary Hypertension in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease on Dialysis and without Dialysis: Results of the PEPPER-Study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
PLOS ONE, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1371/journal.pone.0035310 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Stefan Pabst, Christoph Hammerstingl, Felix Hundt, Thomas Gerhardt, Christian Grohé, Georg Nickenig, Rainer Woitas, Dirk Skowasch |
| Abstract |
Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is common in patients with dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease and is an independent predictor of mortality. However, specific hemodynamics of the pulmonary circulation, changes induced by hemodialysis and characterization into pre- or postcapillary PH have not been evaluated in patients with chronic kidney disease. We assessed consecutive patients with end-stage chronic kidney disease in WHO FC ≥ II with dyspnea unexplained by other causes on hemodialysis (group 1, n = 31) or without dialysis (group 2, n = 31) using right heart catheterization (RHC). In group 1, RHC was performed before and after dialysis. In end-stage chronic kidney disease, prevalence of precapillary PH was 13% (4/31), and postcapillary PH was discovered in 65% (20/31). All four cases of precapillary PH were unmasked after dialysis. In group 2, two cases of precapillary PH were detected (6%), and postcapillary PH was diagnosed in 22 cases (71%). This is the first study examining a large cohort of patients with chronic kidney disease invasively by RHC for the prevalence of PH. The prevalence of precapillary PH was 13% in patients with end-stage kidney disease. That suggests careful screening for precapillary PH in this selected patient population. RHC should be performed after hemodialysis. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 2 | 2% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 83 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 15 | 17% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 18% |
| Unknown | 19 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 9 | 10% |
| Engineering | 2 | 2% |
| Mathematics | 2 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 7% |
| Unknown | 24 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 March 2019.
All research outputs
#2,246,622
of 22,664,644 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#28,716
of 193,509 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,267
of 161,880 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#502
of 3,728 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,664,644 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 193,509 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 161,880 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,728 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.