↓ Skip to main content

Updates in the Metabolic Management of Calcium Stones

Overview of attention for article published in Current Urology Reports, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Updates in the Metabolic Management of Calcium Stones
Published in
Current Urology Reports, April 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11934-018-0791-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kristina L. Penniston, Stephen Y. Nakada

Abstract

Urinary risk factors, such as hypercalciuria, hypocitraturia, and hyperoxaluria, either in combination or alone, are associated with calcium stones. Dietary habits as well as underlying medical conditions can influence urinary risk factors. Evaluation of the conglomerate of patients' stone risks provides evidence for individualized medical management, an effective and patient-supported approach to prevention. Many patients with stones desire prevention to avoid repeated surgical interventions. Yet, recent practice pattern assessments and health care utilization data show that many patients are rarely referred for metabolic evaluation or management. Innovations in metabolic management over the past decade have improved its effectiveness in reducing risk and preventing calcium stones. Although no new pharmacologic agents for calcium stone prevention have recently become available, there is relatively new thinking about some diet-based approaches. This review will synthesize current evidence to support individualized metabolic management of calcium stones.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Other 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 9 20%
Unknown 12 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 39%
Chemistry 3 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 14 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 04 May 2018.
All research outputs
#13,766,774
of 24,052,577 outputs
Outputs from Current Urology Reports
#428
of 610 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,486
of 300,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Urology Reports
#11
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,052,577 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 610 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 300,204 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.