↓ Skip to main content

Prevention of Contrast Nephropathy by Furosemide With Matched Hydration The MYTHOS (Induced Diuresis With Matched Hydration Compared to Standard Hydration for Contrast Induced Nephropathy Prevention…

Overview of attention for article published in JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, January 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#20 of 4,030)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
22 news outlets
twitter
5 X users
patent
10 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
205 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
135 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Prevention of Contrast Nephropathy by Furosemide With Matched Hydration The MYTHOS (Induced Diuresis With Matched Hydration Compared to Standard Hydration for Contrast Induced Nephropathy Prevention) Trial
Published in
JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions, January 2012
DOI 10.1016/j.jcin.2011.08.017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Giancarlo Marenzi, Cristina Ferrari, Ivana Marana, Emilio Assanelli, Monica De Metrio, Giovanni Teruzzi, Fabrizio Veglia, Franco Fabbiocchi, Piero Montorsi, Antonio L. Bartorelli

Abstract

This study investigated the effect of furosemide-forced diuresis and intravenous saline infusion matched with urine output, using a novel dedicated device designed for contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) prevention.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 135 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Saudi Arabia 1 <1%
Iran, Islamic Republic of 1 <1%
China 1 <1%
Unknown 130 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 14%
Other 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 9%
Student > Postgraduate 12 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 12 9%
Other 33 24%
Unknown 33 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 80 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 39 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 167. 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 09 April 2024.
All research outputs
#243,351
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
#20
of 4,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,158
of 250,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
#1
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,030 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 250,101 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 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 94% of its contemporaries.