↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence, pathophysiological mechanisms and factors affecting urolithiasis

Overview of attention for article published in Geriatric Nephrology and Urology, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Prevalence, pathophysiological mechanisms and factors affecting urolithiasis
Published in
Geriatric Nephrology and Urology, March 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11255-018-1849-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aslam Khan

Abstract

The formation of urinary stone, urolithiasis, is one the oldest known disease affecting human throughout different civilizations and times. The exact pathophysiological mechanism of urolithiasis is not yet clear, as these calculi are of various types and too complex for simple understanding. A single theory cannot explain its formation; therefore, different theories are presented in various times for its explanation like free particle, fixed particle, Randall's plaque theory. In addition, various factors and components are identified that play an important role in the formation of these urinary calculi. In this review, composition of kidney stones, its prevalence/incidence, explanation of pathophysiological mechanisms and role of various factors; urinary pH, uric acid, parathyroid hormone, citrate, oxalate, calcium and macromolecules; osteopontin, matrix Gla protein, kidney injury molecules, urinary prothrombin fragment-1, Tamm-Horsfall protein, inter-α-inhibitors, have been discussed in detail.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 109 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 13 12%
Other 10 9%
Researcher 10 9%
Student > Master 10 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 7%
Other 18 17%
Unknown 40 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 37 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 47 43%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 May 2018.
All research outputs
#5,431,262
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Geriatric Nephrology and Urology
#243
of 1,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#98,781
of 347,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Geriatric Nephrology and Urology
#9
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 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 1,493 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% 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 347,572 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.