↓ Skip to main content

Modern iron replacement therapy: clinical and pathophysiological insights

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Hematology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#18 of 1,473)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
35 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
135 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
214 Mendeley
Title
Modern iron replacement therapy: clinical and pathophysiological insights
Published in
International Journal of Hematology, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s12185-017-2373-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Domenico Girelli, Sara Ugolini, Fabiana Busti, Giacomo Marchi, Annalisa Castagna

Abstract

Iron deficiency, with or without anemia, is extremely frequent worldwide, representing a major public health problem. Iron replacement therapy dates back to the seventeenth century, and has progressed relatively slowly until recently. Both oral and intravenous traditional iron formulations are known to be far from ideal, mainly because of tolerability and safety issues, respectively. At the beginning of this century, the discovery of hepcidin/ferroportin axis has represented a turning point in the knowledge of the pathophysiology of iron metabolism disorders, ushering a new era. In the meantime, advances in the pharmaceutical technologies are producing newer iron formulations aimed at minimizing the problems inherent with traditional approaches. The pharmacokinetic of oral and parenteral iron is substantially different, and diversities have become even clearer in light of the hepcidin master role in regulating systemic iron homeostasis. Here we review how iron therapy is changing because of such important advances in both pathophysiology and pharmacology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 35 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 214 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 214 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 23 11%
Researcher 23 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 9%
Student > Bachelor 19 9%
Student > Master 18 8%
Other 44 21%
Unknown 67 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 84 39%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 2%
Other 28 13%
Unknown 67 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 23. 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 06 March 2021.
All research outputs
#1,568,712
of 24,874,764 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Hematology
#18
of 1,473 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,123
of 449,440 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Hematology
#2
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,874,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,473 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 449,440 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.