↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Uric acid lowering therapies for preventing or delaying the progression of chronic kidney disease

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
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 (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
61 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
149 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Uric acid lowering therapies for preventing or delaying the progression of chronic kidney disease
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009460.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna L Sampson, Richard F Singer, Giles D Walters

Abstract

Non-randomised data have shown a link between hyperuricaemia and the progression or development of chronic kidney disease (CKD). If this is correct, urate lowering therapy might form an important part of chronic kidney disease care, reducing risks for cardiovascular outcomes and end-stage kidney disease. This review aims to study the benefits and harms of uric acid lowering therapy on the progression of CKD and other cardiovascular endpoints. We searched the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialised Register to 20 July 2017 through contact with the Information Specialist using search terms relevant to this review. Studies contained in the Specialised Register are identified through search strategies specifically designed for CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE; handsearching conference proceedings; and searching the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov. All randomised controlled trials testing primary urate lowering therapy in patients with or without CKD. Two authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. Statistical analyses were performed using a random effects model and results expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes or mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, or standardised mean difference (SMD) if different scales were used. Twelve studies (1187 participants) were included in the review. Risk of bias was unclear for the majority of domains in each study.Uric acid lowering therapy may make little or no difference in death at six months (2 studies, 498 participants: RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.48) or two years (2 studies, 220 participants): RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.06) (low certainty evidence). Uric acid lowering therapy may make little of no difference (low certainty evidence) in the incidence of ESKD at one or two years. Kidney function may be improved by uric acid lowering therapy at one year with a reduction in serum creatinine (2 studies, 83 participants: MD -73.35 µmol/L, 95% CI -107.28 to -39.41) and a rise in eGFR (1 study, 113 participants: MD 5.50 mL/min/1.73 m(2), 95% CI 0.59 to 10.41). However it probably makes little or no difference to eGFR at two years (2 studies, 164 participants: MD 4.00 mL/min, 95% CI -3.28 to 11.28). Uric acid lowering therapy reduced uric acid levels at all time points (3, 4, 6, 12 and 24 months) (high certainty evidence).There is insufficient evidence to support an effect on blood pressure, proteinuria or other cardiovascular markers by uric acid lowering therapy. It should be noted that the apparent benefits of treatment were not apparent at all time points, introducing the potential for bias. There is limited data which suggests uric acid lowering therapy may prevent progression of chronic kidney disease but the conclusion is very uncertain. Benefits were not observed at all time points and study quality was generally low. Larger studies are required to study the effect of uric acid lowering therapy on CKD progression. Three ongoing studies will hopefully provide much needed high quality data.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 149 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 149 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 14%
Student > Bachelor 19 13%
Other 15 10%
Researcher 14 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 7%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 43 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 11%
Unspecified 8 5%
Psychology 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 47 32%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 27 July 2021.
All research outputs
#2,065,145
of 20,117,040 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,636
of 12,013 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,567
of 337,301 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#121
of 249 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 20,117,040 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,013 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 337,301 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 249 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.