| Title |
Use of a Rapid Ethylene Glycol Assay: a 4-Year Retrospective Study at an Academic Medical Center
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Toxicology, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13181-015-0516-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sydney L. Rooney, Alexandra Ehlers, Cory Morris, Denny Drees, Scott R. Davis, Jeff Kulhavy, Matthew D. Krasowski |
| Abstract |
Ethylene glycol (EG) is a common cause of toxic ingestions. Gas chromatography (GC)-based laboratory assays are the gold standard for diagnosing EG intoxication. However, GC requires specialized instrumentation and technical expertise that limits feasibility for many clinical laboratories. The objective of this retrospective study was to determine the utility of incorporating a rapid EG assay for management of cases with suspected EG poisoning. The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics core clinical laboratory adapted a veterinary EG assay (Catachem, Inc.) for the Roche Diagnostics cobas 8000 c502 analyzer and incorporated this assay in an osmolal gap-based algorithm for potential toxic alcohol/glycol ingestions. The main limitation is that high concentrations of propylene glycol (PG), while readily identifiable by reaction rate kinetics, can interfere with EG measurement. The clinical laboratory had the ability to perform GC for EG and PG, if needed. A total of 222 rapid EG and 24 EG/PG GC analyses were documented in 106 patient encounters. Of ten confirmed EG ingestions, eight cases were managed entirely with the rapid EG assay. PG interference was evident in 25 samples, leading to 8 GC analyses to rule out the presence of EG. Chart review of cases with negative rapid EG assay results showed no evidence of false negatives. The results of this study highlight the use of incorporating a rapid EG assay for the diagnosis and management of suspected EG toxicity by decreasing the reliance on GC. Future improvements would involve rapid EG assays that completely avoid interference by PG. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 23 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 13% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 9% |
| Researcher | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 6 | 26% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 30% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 9% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 4 | 17% |
| Unknown | 7 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 14 August 2017.
All research outputs
#5,802,092
of 22,997,544 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#330
of 671 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,919
of 285,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#5
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,997,544 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 671 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.6. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 285,402 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 17 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 70% of its contemporaries.