| Title |
Doubling of serum creatinine and the risk of cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus: a cohort study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Epidemiology, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.2147/clep.s107060 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Cornelia Schneider, Blai Coll, Susan S Jick, Christoph R Meier |
| Abstract |
Doubling of serum creatinine is often used as a marker for worsening kidney function in nephrology trials. Most people with chronic kidney disease die of other causes before reaching end-stage renal disease. We were interested in the association between doubling of serum creatinine and the risk of a first-time diagnosis of angina pectoris, congestive heart failure (CHF), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or transient ischemic attack in patients with chronic kidney disease and with diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus. We identified all adult patients registered in the "Clinical Practice Research Datalink" between 2002 and 2011 with incident chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus and did a cohort study with a Cox proportional hazard analysis. We identified in total 27,811 patients, 693 developed angina pectoris, 1,069 CHF, 508 MI, 970 stroke, and 578 transient ischemic attacks. Patients whose serum creatinine doubled during follow-up had increased risks of CHF (hazard ratio [HR] 2.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.27-3.89), MI (HR 2.53, 95% CI 1.62-3.96), and stroke (HR 1.93, 95% CI 1.38-2.69), as compared with patients whose serum creatinine did not double. The relative risks of angina pectoris (HR 1.18, 95% CI 0.66-2.10) or a transient ischemic attack (HR 1.32, 95% CI 0.78-2.22) were similar in both groups. Diabetic patients with a doubling of serum creatinine were at an increased risk of CHF, MI, or stroke, compared with diabetic patients whose serum creatinine did not double during follow-up. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 19% |
| Researcher | 5 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 16% |
| Unknown | 10 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 38% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 11% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Mathematics | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 11% |
| Unknown | 10 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 05 March 2024.
All research outputs
#4,919,242
of 23,862,416 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Epidemiology
#204
of 757 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,875
of 343,465 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Epidemiology
#5
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,862,416 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 757 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 343,465 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.