| Title |
Renal replacement therapy in adult and pediatric intensive care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Annals of Intensive Care, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13613-015-0093-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christophe Vinsonneau, Emma Allain-Launay, Clarisse Blayau, Michael Darmon, Damien du Cheyron, Theophile Gaillot, Patrick M. Honore, Etienne Javouhey, Thierry Krummel, Annie Lahoche, Serge Letacon, Matthieu Legrand, Mehran Monchi, Christophe Ridel, René Robert, Frederique Schortgen, Bertrand Souweine, Patrick Vaillant, Lionel Velly, David Osman, Ly Van Vong |
| Abstract |
Acute renal failure (ARF) in critically ill patients is currently very frequent and requires renal replacement therapy (RRT) in many patients. During the last 15 years, several studies have considered important issues regarding the use of RRT in ARF, like the time to initiate the therapy, the dialysis dose, the types of catheter, the choice of technique, and anticoagulation. However, despite an abundant literature, conflicting results do not provide evidence on RRT implementation. We present herein recommendations for the use of RRT in adult and pediatric intensive care developed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system by an expert group of French Intensive Care Society (SRLF), with the participation of the French Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care (SFAR), the French Group for Pediatric Intensive Care and Emergencies (GFRUP), and the French Dialysis Society (SFD). The recommendations cover 4 fields: criteria for RRT initiation, technical aspects (access routes, membranes, anticoagulation, reverse osmosis water), practical aspects (choice of the method, peritoneal dialysis, dialysis dose, adjustments), and safety (procedures and training, dialysis catheter management, extracorporeal circuit set-up). These recommendations have been designed on a practical point of view to provide guidance for intensivists in their daily practice. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 15% |
| Other | 8 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 14 | 23% |
| Unknown | 10 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 54% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 13% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 16 | 26% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 February 2016.
All research outputs
#20,303,950
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Intensive Care
#955
of 1,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#330,183
of 393,161 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Intensive Care
#24
of 30 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,043 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 16.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 393,161 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 30 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.