↓ Skip to main content

Variability in the Management of Lithium Poisoning

Overview of attention for article published in Seminars in Dialysis, March 2014
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 (82nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Variability in the Management of Lithium Poisoning
Published in
Seminars in Dialysis, March 2014
DOI 10.1111/sdi.12235
Pubmed ID
Authors

Darren M. Roberts, Sophie Gosselin

Abstract

Three patterns of lithium poisoning are recognized: acute, acute-on-chronic, and chronic. Intravenous fluids with or without an extracorporeal treatment are the mainstay of treatment; their respective roles may differ depending on the mode of poisoning being treated. Recommendations for treatment selection are available but these are based on a small number of observational studies and their uptake by clinicians is not known. Clinician decision-making in the treatment of four cases of lithium poisoning was assessed at a recent clinical toxicology meeting using an audience response system. Variability in treatment decisions was evident in addition to discordance with published recommendations. Participants did not consistently indicate that hemodialysis was the first-line treatment, instead opting for a conservative approach, and continuous modalities were viewed favorably; this is in contrast to recommendations in some references. The development of multidisciplinary consensus guidelines may improve the management of patients with lithium poisoning but prospective randomized controlled trials are required to more clearly define the role of extracorporeal treatments.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 3%
Unknown 33 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 18%
Other 5 15%
Student > Bachelor 5 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Other 10 29%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Psychology 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 4 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 12 September 2016.
All research outputs
#4,363,224
of 24,525,936 outputs
Outputs from Seminars in Dialysis
#114
of 800 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#40,713
of 228,527 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Seminars in Dialysis
#7
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,525,936 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 800 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 228,527 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 82% 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 has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.