↓ Skip to main content

Starvation-induced True Diabetic Euglycemic Ketoacidosis in Severe Depression

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, October 2008
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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
Title
Starvation-induced True Diabetic Euglycemic Ketoacidosis in Severe Depression
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, October 2008
DOI 10.1007/s11606-008-0829-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Franklin Joseph, Lydia Anderson, Niru Goenka, Jiten Vora

Abstract

True euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis [blood glucose <200 mg/dl (11.1 mmol/l)] is relatively uncommon and in type 1 diabetes can be caused by starvation of any cause in conjunction with an intercurrent illness. We report a case of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis precipitated by starvation resulting from severe depression in a patient with type 1 diabetes. He was acidotic with ketonuria, but his blood glucose was only 105 mg/dl (5.8 mmol/l). He was rehydrated, the acidosis was corrected, and his depression was later treated. This case involves the complex interplay among type 1 diabetes, depression, ketoacidosis, and starvation physiology resulting in glucose concentrations in keeping with euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis. The case also highlights that even in the absence of hyperglycemia, acid/base status should be assessed in an ill patient with diabetes, and in cases of euglycemic diabetic ketoacidosis, the diagnosis of depression should be considered as a cause for suppressed appetite and anorexia.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 15%
Researcher 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Other 5 8%
Student > Postgraduate 5 8%
Other 16 27%
Unknown 13 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 55%
Unspecified 4 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Psychology 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 16 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 January 2021.
All research outputs
#3,155,245
of 25,204,049 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#2,260
of 8,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,027
of 100,132 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#16
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,204,049 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,121 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 100,132 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.