You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Efficiency of acidemia correction on intermittent versus continuous hemodialysis in acute methanol poisoning
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Toxicology (15563650), November 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1080/15563650.2016.1250901 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sergey Zakharov, Daniela Pelclova, Tomas Navratil, Jaromir Belacek, Jiri Latta, Michal Pisar, Jan Rulisek, Jiri Leps, Pavel Zidek, Cyril Kucera, Robert Bocek, Miroslav Mazur, Zdenek Belik, Josef Chalupa, Viktor Talafa, Kamil Kodras, Daniel Nalos, Ctirad Sedlak, Michal Senkyrik, Jan Smid, Tomas Salek, Darren M. Roberts, Knut Erik Hovda |
| Abstract |
Acidemia is a marker of prognosis in methanol poisoning, as well as compounding formate-induced cytotoxicity. Prompt correction of acidemia is a key treatment of methanol toxicity and methods to optimize this are poorly defined. We studied the efficiency of acidemia correction by intermittent hemodialysis (IHD) and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) in a mass outbreak of methanol poisoning. The study was designed as observational cohort study. The mean time for an increase of 1 mmol/L HCO3(-), 0.01 unit arterial blood pH, and the total time for correction of HCO3(-) were determined in IHD- and CRRT-treated patients. Data were obtained from 18 patients treated with IHD and 13 patients treated with CRRT. At baseline, CRRT group was more acidemic than IHD group (mean arterial pH 6.79 ± 0.10 versus 7.05 ± 0.10; p = 0.001). No association was found between the rate of acidemia correction and age, weight, serum methanol, lactate, formate, and glucose on admission. The time to HCO3(-) correction correlated with arterial blood pH (r= -0.511; p = 0.003) and creatinine (r = 0.415; p = 0.020). There was association between the time to HCO3(-) correction and dialysate/effluent and blood flow rates (r= -0.738; p < 0.001 and r= -0.602; p < 0.001, correspondingly). The mean time for HCO3(-) to increase by 1 mmol/L was 12 ± 2 min for IHD versus 34 ± 8 min for CRRT (p < 0.001), and the mean time for arterial blood pH to increase 0.01 was 7 ± 1 mins for IHD versus 11 ± 4 min for CRRT (p = 0.024). The mean increase in HCO3(-) was 5.67 ± 0.90 mmol/L/h for IHD versus 2.17 ± 0.74 mmol/L/h for CRRT (p < 0.001). Our study supports the superiority of IHD over CRRT in terms of the rate of acidemia correction. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 40% |
| Italy | 1 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 10% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 10% |
| Chile | 1 | 10% |
| Unknown | 2 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 60% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 30% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 10% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 28% |
| Other | 6 | 15% |
| Lecturer | 5 | 13% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 7 | 18% |
| Unknown | 6 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 53% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 8 | 20% |
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 17 January 2017.
All research outputs
#5,378,711
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Toxicology (15563650)
#942
of 2,731 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,380
of 318,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Toxicology (15563650)
#10
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,731 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 318,590 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.