↓ Skip to main content

Intravenous fluids: balancing solutions

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Nephrology, November 2016
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 (#37 of 1,057)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users
patent
3 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
247 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Intravenous fluids: balancing solutions
Published in
Journal of Nephrology, November 2016
DOI 10.1007/s40620-016-0363-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ewout J. Hoorn

Abstract

The topic of intravenous (IV) fluids may be regarded as "reverse nephrology", because nephrologists usually treat to remove fluids rather than to infuse them. However, because nephrology is deeply rooted in fluid, electrolyte, and acid-base balance, IV fluids belong in the realm of our specialty. The field of IV fluid therapy is in motion due to the increasing use of balanced crystalloids, partly fueled by the advent of new solutions. This review aims to capture these recent developments by critically evaluating the current evidence base. It will review both indications and complications of IV fluid therapy, including the characteristics of the currently available solutions. It will also cover the use of IV fluids in specific settings such as kidney transplantation and pediatrics. Finally, this review will address the pathogenesis of saline-induced hyperchloremic acidosis, its potential effect on outcomes, and the question if this should lead to a definitive switch to balanced solutions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 247 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 247 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 37 15%
Other 29 12%
Student > Master 28 11%
Student > Postgraduate 20 8%
Researcher 15 6%
Other 33 13%
Unknown 85 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 87 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 3%
Chemistry 6 2%
Other 19 8%
Unknown 90 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 11 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,486,866
of 24,762,960 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nephrology
#37
of 1,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,060
of 427,228 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nephrology
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,762,960 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 1,057 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 427,228 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 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.