↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Assessment of renal function in geriatric palliative care patients – comparison of creatinine-based estimation equations

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Interventions in Aging, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Assessment of renal function in geriatric palliative care patients – comparison of creatinine-based estimation equations
Published in
Clinical Interventions in Aging, June 2017
DOI 10.2147/cia.s130583
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ewa Deskur-Smielecka, Aleksandra Kotlinska-Lemieszek, Jerzy Chudek, Katarzyna Wieczorowska-Tobis

Abstract

Renal function impairment is common in geriatric palliative care patients. Accurate assessment of renal function is necessary for appropriate drug dosage. Several equations are used to estimate kidney function. 1) To investigate the differences (Δ) in kidney function assessed with simplified Modifi-cation of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD), Berlin Initiative Study (BIS1), and Cockcroft-Gault (C-G) formulas in geriatric palliative care patients, and 2) to assess factors that may influence these differences. A retrospective analysis of data of patients aged ≥70 years admitted to a palliative care in-patient unit. The agreement between C-G, MDRD, and BIS1 equations was assessed with Bland-Altman analysis. Partial correlation analysis was used to analyze factors influencing the discordance. A total of 174 patients (67 men; mean age 77.9±5.8 years) were enrolled. The mean Δ MDRD and C-G was 18.6 (95% limits of agreement 55.3 and -18.2). The mean Δ BIS1 and C-G was 6.1 (25.7 and -13.5), and the mean Δ MDRD and BIS1 was 12.5 (40.6 and -15.6). According to the National Kidney Foundation classification, 61 (35.1%) patients were differently staged using MDRD and C-G, whilê20% of patients were differently staged with BIS1 and C-G and MDRD and BIS1. Serum creatinine (SCr) and body mass index (BMI) had the most important influence on variability of Δ MDRD and C-G (partial R(2) 37.7% and 28.4%). Variability of Δ BIS1 and C-G was mostly influenced by BMI (34.8%) and variability of Δ MDRD and BIS1 by SCr (42.2%). Age had relatively low influence on differences between equations (3.1%-9.5%). There is a considerable disagreement between renal function estimation formulas, especially MDRD and C-G in geriatric palliative care patients, which may lead to errors in drug dosage adjustment. The magnitude of discrepancy increases with lower SCr, lower BMI, and higher age.

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 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 15%
Other 3 12%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Other 4 15%
Unknown 8 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 19%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 8%
Psychology 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 7 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 July 2017.
All research outputs
#14,393,794
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#910
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#158,617
of 330,503 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#21
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% 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 330,503 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.