↓ 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 (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 tweeters
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 4 24%
Student > Bachelor 3 18%
Unspecified 3 18%
Researcher 3 18%
Other 1 6%
Other 3 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Unspecified 3 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 18%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 18%
Engineering 2 12%
Social Sciences 2 12%
Other 4 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 September 2017.
All research outputs
#769,469
of 12,975,636 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Transplantation
#210
of 3,112 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,120
of 335,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Transplantation
#14
of 113 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,975,636 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 3,112 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. 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 335,666 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 113 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.