↓ Skip to main content

Subacute pulmonary embolism in a hemodialysis patient, successfully treated with surgical thrombectomy

Overview of attention for article published in CEN Case Reports, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
Title
Subacute pulmonary embolism in a hemodialysis patient, successfully treated with surgical thrombectomy
Published in
CEN Case Reports, February 2016
DOI 10.1007/s13730-015-0195-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keisuke Yamasaki, Naoki Haruyama, Masatomo Taniguchi, Takahiro Nishida, Ryuji Tominaga, Takanari Kitazono, Kazuhiko Tsuruya

Abstract

A 53-year-old woman was admitted to our hospital with a 1-month history of gradually progressive resting dyspnea and lumbar backache. For the preceding 6 years, she had received regular hemodialysis for end-stage renal disease caused by autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease and had taken tamoxifen for 3 years as post-operative chemotherapy for breast cancer. Before admission, the patient's symptoms had been attributed to volume overload, based on right thoracic fluid and leg edema. However, despite volume correction by dialysis therapy, her symptoms had not improved. The patient was transferred to our hospital, where she was diagnosed with subacute pulmonary embolism (PE). Emergent pulmonary thrombectomy was performed using cardio-pulmonary bypass. The patient was discharged from our hospital on post-operative day 23. Recent reports have shown that hemodialysis patients have a relatively higher risk of PE compared with the general population. Our case had additional risk factors for PE: female sex, decreased protein C level, tamoxifen use, and autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. These factors may have had a synergistic effect on the onset of PE.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 20%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 13%
Other 1 7%
Researcher 1 7%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 53%
Mathematics 1 7%
Social Sciences 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Unknown 4 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 February 2023.
All research outputs
#16,047,147
of 25,376,646 outputs
Outputs from CEN Case Reports
#101
of 296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#224,983
of 413,290 outputs
Outputs of similar age from CEN Case Reports
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,376,646 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% 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 413,290 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them