↓ Skip to main content

Glomerular diseases and cancer: evaluation of underlying malignancy

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Nephrology, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#33 of 1,057)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
42 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
71 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
Glomerular diseases and cancer: evaluation of underlying malignancy
Published in
Journal of Nephrology, October 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40620-015-0234-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonello Pani, Camillo Porta, Laura Cosmai, Patrizia Melis, Matteo Floris, Doloretta Piras, Maurizio Gallieni, Mitchell Rosner, Claudio Ponticelli

Abstract

Onconephrology is an emerging medical subspecialty focused on the numerous interconnections between cancer and kidney diseases. Patient with malignancies commonly experience kidney problems including acute kidney injury, tumor lysis syndrome, fluid and electrolyte disorders and chronic kidney disease, often as a consequence of the anti-cancer treatment. Conversely, a number of glomerulopathies, tubulopathies and vascular renal diseases can early signal the presence of an underlying cancer. Furthermore, the administration of immunosuppressive drugs, especially cytotoxic drugs and calcineurin inhibitors, may strongly impair the immune response increasing the risk of cancer. The objective of this review article is to: (i) discuss paraneoplastic glomerular disease, (ii) review cancer as an adverse effect of immunosuppressive agents used to treat glomerulopathies, and (iii) in the absence of international approved guidelines, propose a screening program based on expert opinion aimed at guiding nephrologists to early detect malignancies during their clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 9 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Researcher 6 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 7%
Other 17 24%
Unknown 20 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 55%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Unspecified 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Social Sciences 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 23 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. 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 03 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,377,588
of 24,778,793 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Nephrology
#33
of 1,057 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,563
of 290,464 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Nephrology
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,778,793 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,057 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% 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 290,464 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 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 99% of its contemporaries.