↓ Skip to main content

Acute Kidney Injury in a Patient on Tenofovir Alafenamide Fumarate After Initiation of Treatment for Hepatitis C Virus Infection

Overview of attention for article published in Open Forum Infectious Diseases, July 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 (72nd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users

Readers on

mendeley
23 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.
Article details
Title
Acute Kidney Injury in a Patient on Tenofovir Alafenamide Fumarate After Initiation of Treatment for Hepatitis C Virus Infection
Published in
Open Forum Infectious Diseases, July 2018
DOI 10.1093/ofid/ofy189
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

HIV treatment with tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF) has decreased renal toxicity compared with tenofovir disoproxil fumarate in clinical trials. We report the case of a patient with HIV/HCV coinfection who was started on a TAF-based HIV regimen and developed acute kidney injury that worsened with the addition of sofosbuvir-ledipasvir.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 17%
Other 2 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Other 4 17%
Unknown 7 30%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 39%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 13%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 30%
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 05 March 2023.
All research outputs
#5,892,446
of 27,627,301 outputs
Outputs from Open Forum Infectious Diseases
#2,131
of 5,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,353
of 345,492 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open Forum Infectious Diseases
#32
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,627,301 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 5,181 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 345,492 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.