The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
| Title |
Interventions for protecting renal function in the perioperative period
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003590.pub4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mathew Zacharias, Mohan Mugawar, G Peter Herbison, Robert J Walker, Karen Hovhannisyan, Pal Sivalingam, Niamh P Conlon |
| Abstract |
Various methods have been used to try to protect kidney function in patients undergoing surgery. These most often include pharmacological interventions such as dopamine and its analogues, diuretics, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, N-acetyl cysteine (NAC), atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP), sodium bicarbonate, antioxidants and erythropoietin (EPO). |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 1 | 17% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 17% |
| Peru | 1 | 17% |
| United States | 1 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 83% |
| Scientists | 1 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 259 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 258 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 33 | 13% |
| Researcher | 27 | 10% |
| Other | 24 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 9% |
| Other | 58 | 22% |
| Unknown | 69 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 122 | 47% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 6% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 26 | 10% |
| Unknown | 77 | 30% |
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 28 October 2013.
All research outputs
#6,949,196
of 26,563,746 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8,380
of 13,244 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,152
of 212,695 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#152
of 237 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,563,746 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,244 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.7. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 212,695 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 237 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.