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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
How to diagnose amyloidosis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Internal Medicine Journal, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1111/imj.12288 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
P. Mollee, P. Renaut, D. Gottlieb, H. Goodman |
| Abstract |
Amyloidosis is a rare but devastating condition caused by deposition of misfolded proteins as aggregates in the extracellular tissues of the body, leading to impairment of organ function. High clinical suspicion is required to facilitate early diagnosis. Correct identification of the causal amyloid protein is absolutely crucial for clinical management in order to avoid misdiagnosis and inappropriate, potentially harmful treatment, to assess prognosis, and to offer genetic counselling if relevant. This review summarises the current evidence on which the diagnosis and subtyping of amyloidosis is based, outlines the limitations of various diagnostic techniques, particularly in an Australian and New Zealand context, and discusses optimal strategies for the diagnostic approach to these patients. Recommendations are provided for when particularly to suspect amyloidosis, what investigations are required, as well as an approach to accurate subtyping of amyloidosis. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 107 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 107 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 12 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 11% |
| Researcher | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 28 | 26% |
| Unknown | 26 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 49 | 46% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 8 | 7% |
| Chemistry | 2 | 2% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 5% |
| Unknown | 31 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 2022.
All research outputs
#5,166,318
of 24,549,201 outputs
Outputs from Internal Medicine Journal
#527
of 2,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,776
of 316,518 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Internal Medicine Journal
#4
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,549,201 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 78th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,464 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 316,518 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.