↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Proton-pump inhibitors use, and risk of acute kidney injury: a meta-analysis of observational studies

Overview of attention for article published in Drug Design, Development and Therapy, April 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 (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
policy
1 policy source
twitter
4 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
Proton-pump inhibitors use, and risk of acute kidney injury: a meta-analysis of observational studies
Published in
Drug Design, Development and Therapy, April 2017
DOI 10.2147/dddt.s130568
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yi Yang, Kaisha C George, Wei-Feng Shang, Rui Zeng, Shu-Wang Ge, Gang Xu

Abstract

Recent studies have suggested a potential increased risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) among proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) users. However, the present results are conflicting. Thus, we performed a meta-analysis to investigate the association between PPI therapy and the risk of AKI. EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases (up to September 23, 2016) were systematically searched for any studies assessing the relationship between PPI use and risk of AKI. Studies that reported relevant risk ratios (RRs), odds ratios, or hazard ratios were included. We calculated the pooled RRs with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model of the meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis was conducted to explore the source of heterogeneity. Seven observational studies (five cohort studies and two case-control studies) were identified and included, and a total of 513,696 cases of PPI use among 2,404,236 participants were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled adjusted RR of AKI in patients with PPIs use was 1.61 (95% CI: 1.16-2.22; I(2)=98.1%). Furthermore, higher risks of AKI were found in the subgroups of cohort studies, participant's average age <60 years, participants with and without baseline PPI excluded, sample size <300,000, and number of adjustments ≥11. Subgroup analyses revealed that participants with or without baseline PPI excluded might be a source of heterogeneity. PPI use could be a risk factor for AKI and should be administered carefully. Nevertheless, some confounding factors might impact the outcomes. More well-designed prospective studies are needed to clarify the association.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 13 15%
Researcher 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 6 7%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 25 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 33%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 19 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 26 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 31 October 2019.
All research outputs
#1,872,614
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#89
of 2,268 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,522
of 323,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Drug Design, Development and Therapy
#4
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,268 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 323,961 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.