KDOQI US Commentary on the 2012 KDIGO Clinical Practice Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of CKD
American Journal of Kidney Diseases, ISSN: 0272-6386, Vol: 63, Issue: 5, Page: 713-735
2014
- 1,370Citations
- 1,942Captures
- 16Mentions
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Citations1,370
- Citation Indexes1,354
- 1,354
- CrossRef830
- Policy Citations15
- Policy Citation15
- Clinical Citations1
- PubMed Guidelines1
- Captures1,942
- Readers1,942
- 1,866
- 74
- Mentions16
- News Mentions16
- News16
Most Recent News
Machine learning models predict the progression of long-term renal insufficiency in patients with renal cancer after radical nephrectomy
Abstract Background Chronic Kidney Disease (CKD) is a common severe complication after radical nephrectomy in patients with renal cancer. The timely and accurate prediction of
Article Description
The National Kidney Foundation–Kidney Disease Outcomes Quality Initiative (NKF-KDOQI) guideline for evaluation, classification, and stratification of chronic kidney disease (CKD) was published in 2002. The KDOQI guideline was well accepted by the medical and public health communities, but concerns and criticisms arose as new evidence became available since the publication of the original guidelines. KDIGO (Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes) recently published an updated guideline to clarify the definition and classification of CKD and to update recommendations for the evaluation and management of individuals with CKD based on new evidence published since 2002. The primary recommendations were to retain the current definition of CKD based on decreased glomerular filtration rate or markers of kidney damage for 3 months or more and to include the cause of kidney disease and level of albuminuria, as well as level of glomerular filtration rate, for CKD classification. NKF-KDOQI convened a work group to write a commentary on the KDIGO guideline in order to assist US practitioners in interpreting the KDIGO guideline and determining its applicability within their own practices. Overall, the commentary work group agreed with most of the recommendations contained in the KDIGO guidelines, particularly the recommendations regarding the definition and classification of CKD. However, there were some concerns about incorporating the cause of disease into CKD classification, in addition to certain recommendations for evaluation and management.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272638614004910; http://dx.doi.org/10.1053/j.ajkd.2014.01.416; http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84898869053&origin=inward; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24647050; https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0272638614004910; http://www.ajkd.org/article/S0272-6386(14)00491-0/abstract; https://www.ajkd.org/article/S0272-6386(14)00491-0/fulltext; http://www.ajkd.org/article/S0272638614004910/abstract; http://www.ajkd.org/article/S0272638614004910/fulltext; http://www.ajkd.org/article/S0272638614004910/pdf; https://www.ajkd.org/article/S0272-6386(14)00491-0/abstract; http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0272638614004910
Elsevier BV
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know