↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
55 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Unknown 190 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 24 13%
Student > Master 23 12%
Researcher 22 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 5%
Other 37 19%
Unknown 61 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 73 38%
Nursing and Health Professions 18 9%
Engineering 7 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 3%
Psychology 4 2%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 67 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 October 2015.
All research outputs
#8,005,473
of 25,782,229 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,288
of 13,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,230
of 287,285 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#231
of 289 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,782,229 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,138 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% 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 287,285 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 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 289 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.