↓ Skip to main content

The EXTRIP (EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning) workgroup: Guideline methodology

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Toxicology (15563650), May 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
6 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
108 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
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
The EXTRIP (EXtracorporeal TReatments In Poisoning) workgroup: Guideline methodology
Published in
Clinical Toxicology (15563650), May 2012
DOI 10.3109/15563650.2012.683436
Pubmed ID
Authors

Valéry Lavergne, Thomas D. Nolin, Robert S. Hoffman, Darren Roberts, Sophie Gosselin, David S. Goldfarb, Jan T. Kielstein, Robert Mactier, Robert Maclaren, James B. Mowry, Timothy E. Bunchman, David Juurlink, Bruno Megarbane, Kurt Anseeuw, James F. Winchester, Paul I. Dargan, Kathleen D. Liu, Lotte C. Hoegberg, Yi Li, Diane P. Calello, Emmanuel A. Burdmann, Christopher Yates, Martin Laliberté, Brian Scott Decker, Carlos Augusto Mello-Da-Silva, Eric Lavonas, Marc Ghannoum

Abstract

Extracorporeal treatments (ECTRs), such as hemodialysis and hemoperfusion, are used in poisoning despite a lack of controlled human trials demonstrating efficacy. To provide uniform recommendations, the EXTRIP group was formed as an international collaboration among recognized experts from nephrology, clinical toxicology, critical care, or pharmacology and supported by over 30 professional societies. For every poison, the clinical benefit of ECTR is weighed against associated complications, alternative therapies, and costs. Rigorous methodology, using the AGREE instrument, was developed and ratified. Methods rely on evidence appraisal and, in the absence of robust studies, on a thorough and transparent process of consensus statements. Twenty-four poisons were chosen according to their frequency, available evidence, and relevance. A systematic literature search was performed in order to retrieve all original publications regardless of language. Data were extracted on a standardized instrument. Quality of the evidence was assessed by GRADE as: High = A, Moderate = B, Low = C, Very Low = D. For every poison, dialyzability was assessed and clinical effect of ECTR summarized. All pertinent documents were submitted to the workgroup with a list of statements for vote (general statement, indications, timing, ECTR choice). A modified Delphi method with two voting rounds was used, between which deliberation was required. Each statement was voted on a Likert scale (1-9) to establish the strength of recommendation. This approach will permit the production of the first important practice guidelines on this topic.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 76 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 14 18%
Researcher 14 18%
Student > Postgraduate 8 10%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 16 20%
Unknown 13 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 48 61%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 14 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 22 June 2016.
All research outputs
#2,531,014
of 25,707,225 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Toxicology (15563650)
#445
of 2,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,204
of 177,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Toxicology (15563650)
#6
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,707,225 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,758 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. 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 177,172 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 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 68% of its contemporaries.