↓ Skip to main content

Wiley Online Library

Utilization of Deceased Donor Kidneys to Initiate Living Donor Chains

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Transplantation, March 2016
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 (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
7 X users
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Utilization of Deceased Donor Kidneys to Initiate Living Donor Chains
Published in
American Journal of Transplantation, March 2016
DOI 10.1111/ajt.13740
Pubmed ID
Authors

M L Melcher, J P Roberts, A B Leichtman, A E Roth, M A Rees

Abstract

We propose that some deceased donor kidneys be allocated to initiate non-simultaneous extended altruistic donor chains of living donor kidney transplants to address in part the huge disparity between patients on the deceased donor kidney waitlist and available donors. The use of deceased donor kidneys for this purpose would benefit waitlisted candidates in that most patients enrolled in kidney paired donation systems are also waitlisted for a deceased donor kidney transplant and receiving a kidney through the mechanism of kidney paired donation will decrease pressure on the deceased donor pool. In addition, a living donor kidney usually provides survival potential equal or superior to that of deceased donor kidneys. If kidney paired donation chains that are initiated by a deceased donor can end in a donation of a living donor kidney to a candidate on the deceased donor waitlist, the quality of the kidney allocated to waitlisted patient is likely to be improved. We hypothesize that a pilot program would show a positive impact on patients of all ethnicities and blood types. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 14%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Professor 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 10 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 31%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 4 11%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Engineering 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 10 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 26 October 2022.
All research outputs
#1,372,884
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Transplantation
#336
of 5,058 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,809
of 314,757 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Transplantation
#13
of 151 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,058 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 314,757 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 151 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 91% of its contemporaries.