↓ Skip to main content

Sodium Correction Practice and Clinical Outcomes in Profound Hyponatremia

Overview of attention for article published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
70 X users
facebook
6 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Sodium Correction Practice and Clinical Outcomes in Profound Hyponatremia
Published in
Mayo Clinic Proceedings, October 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.mayocp.2015.07.014
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pierce Geoghegan, Andrew M. Harrison, Charat Thongprayoon, Rahul Kashyap, Adil Ahmed, Yue Dong, Alejandro A. Rabinstein, Kianoush B. Kashani, Ognjen Gajic

Abstract

To assess the epidemiology of nonoptimal hyponatremia correction and to identify associated morbidity and in-hospital mortality. An electronic medical record search identified all patients admitted with profound hyponatremia (sodium <120 mmol/L) from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2012. Patients were classified as having optimally or nonoptimally corrected hyponatremia at 24 hours after admission. Optimal correction was defined as sodium correction in 24 hours of 6 through 10 mmol/L. We investigated the association between sodium correction and demographic and outcome variables, including occurrence of osmotic demyelination syndrome (ODS). Baseline characteristics by correction outcome categories were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test for continuous variables and the χ(2) test for categorical variables. Odds ratios for in-hospital mortality between groups were assessed using logistic regression. Adjusted differences in hospital length of stay (LOS) and intensive care unit (ICU) LOS were assessed using the Dunnett 2-tailed t test. A total of 412 patients satisfied inclusion criteria of whom 174 (42.2%) were admitted to the ICU. A total of 211 (51.2%) had optimal correction of their hyponatremia at 24 hours, 87 (21.1%) had undercorrected hyponatremia, and 114 (27.9%) had overcorrected hyponatremia. Both patient factors and treatment factors were associated with nonoptimal correction. There was a single case of ODS. Overcorrection was not associated with in-hospital mortality or ICU LOS. When adjusted for patient factors, undercorrection of profound hyponatremia was associated with an increase in hospital LOS (9.3 days; 95% CI, 1.9-16.7 days). Nonoptimal correction of profound hyponatremia is common. Fortunately, nonoptimal correction is associated with serious morbidity only infrequently.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 70 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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 64 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 17%
Other 10 14%
Student > Postgraduate 8 12%
Researcher 5 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Other 16 23%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 62%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Psychology 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 15 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 53. 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 01 March 2024.
All research outputs
#816,558
of 25,718,113 outputs
Outputs from Mayo Clinic Proceedings
#537
of 5,190 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,668
of 287,689 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Mayo Clinic Proceedings
#20
of 52 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,718,113 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,190 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 287,689 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 52 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 61% of its contemporaries.