↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Bicarbonate versus lactate solutions for acute peritoneal dialysis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
152 Mendeley
Title
Bicarbonate versus lactate solutions for acute peritoneal dialysis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007034.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zheng Gang Bai, KeHu Yang, Jin Hui Tian, Bin Ma, Yali Liu, Lei Jiang, Jiying Tan, Tian Xi Liu, Iris Chi

Abstract

The high mortality rate among critically ill patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) remains an unsolved problem in intensive care medicine, despite the use of renal replacement therapy (RRT). Increasing evidence from clinical studies in adults and children suggests that the new peritoneal dialysis (PD) fluids may allow for better long-term preservation of peritoneal morphology and function. Formation of glucose degradation products (GDPs) can be reduced and even avoided with the use of newer "biocompatible" solutions. However, it is still unclear if there are any differences in using conventional (lactate) solutions compared with low GDP (bicarbonate) solutions for acute PD.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 152 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 1%
Spain 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 147 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 16%
Researcher 16 11%
Student > Bachelor 15 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 7%
Other 30 20%
Unknown 43 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 4%
Engineering 4 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 2%
Other 14 9%
Unknown 49 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 09 March 2021.
All research outputs
#4,605,486
of 25,386,440 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,021
of 12,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,773
of 237,117 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#129
of 219 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,386,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,869 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 36.2. 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 237,117 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 219 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.