↓ Skip to main content

A Review of the Active Treatments for Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Nippon Medical School, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
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.
Title
A Review of the Active Treatments for Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis
Published in
Journal of Nippon Medical School, January 2017
DOI 10.1272/jnms.84.110
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yuri Kinoshita, Hidehisa Saeki

Abstract

Toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN) is a severe adverse drug reaction associated with the separation of skin and mucous membranes at the dermal-epidermal junction. Although it is rare, many treatments have been trialed because of its high mortality rate. Active interventions performed to date include the use of systemic corticosteroids, intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIg), cyclosporine, plasmapheresis, anti-tumor necrosis factor drugs and N-acetylcysteine, but none has been established as the most effective therapy. IVIg and short-term high-dose corticosteroids were regarded as the most promising treatments for TEN in a comprehensive review of all reported TEN cases from 1975-2003. When used with an appropriate dose and timing, the beneficial effects of IVIg can be maximized. Although no randomized controlled trials have been conducted, cyclosporine and plasmapheresis are considered to be beneficial. As no gold standard for active intervention for TEN has been established, the choice of treatment relies partly on the available guidelines and the experience of the dermatologist. There is still much to be investigated regarding the pathogenesis of TEN, and new findings may contribute to the identification of an effective active intervention strategy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 %
Student > Postgraduate 7 19%
Student > Bachelor 5 14%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 13 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 12 33%
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 29 July 2017.
All research outputs
#16,740,074
of 25,401,784 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nippon Medical School
#176
of 346 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,166
of 421,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nippon Medical School
#4
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,401,784 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 346 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 421,738 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 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 72% of its contemporaries.