↓ Skip to main content

Rapid exacerbation of renal function after administration of hydroxyethyl starch in a dog

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Veterinary Medical Science, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Rapid exacerbation of renal function after administration of hydroxyethyl starch in a dog
Published in
Journal of Veterinary Medical Science, September 2017
DOI 10.1292/jvms.17-0196
Pubmed ID
Authors

Junwoo Bae, Mahmoud Soliman, Hyunwoo Kim, Seongwoo Kang, Woosun Kim, Soomin Ahn, Kyoungoh Cho, Jihye Choi, Suhee Kim, Jinho Park, Sangki Kim, Yoonjung DO, Jaegyu Yoo, Dohyeon Yu

Abstract

Hydroxyethyl starches (HES) are commonly used synthetic colloidal solution in veterinary medicine. Despite of possible adverse effect to kidney injury in human, there is no report about nephrotoxic effects of HES in dogs. HES was administered to a Golden retriever (4-year-old, intact male) with ascites in order to increase plasma osmolality. Initially, the dog was mild azotemic, however, kidney function was rapidly deteriorated after several days of HES administration. Finally, histopathological examination revealed remarkable osmotic nephrosis. In the case reported herein, acute kidney injury was remarkably developed after HES administration. Clinical and histopathologic findings of acute kidney injury support nephrotoxic effects of HES to a dog.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 18%
Student > Bachelor 3 18%
Student > Master 2 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 12%
Professor 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 4 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 7 41%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Unknown 4 24%
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 01 March 2018.
All research outputs
#15,173,117
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Veterinary Medical Science
#947
of 3,546 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,832
of 324,458 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Veterinary Medical Science
#9
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,546 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. 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 324,458 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.