↓ Skip to main content

Envenoming by Viridovipera stejnegeri snake: a patient with liver cirrhosis presenting disruption of hemostatic balance

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
Envenoming by Viridovipera stejnegeri snake: a patient with liver cirrhosis presenting disruption of hemostatic balance
Published in
Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40409-017-0096-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chih-Ying Chien, Shu-Chen Liao, Chien-Hung Liao, Ting-Shuo Huang, Yu-Hsien Chen

Abstract

In most cases of envenoming by the green habu Viridovipera stejnegeri in Taiwan coagulopathy is not observed. Herein, we describe the case of a patient with liver cirrhosis who developed venom-induced consumptive coagulopathy after V. stejnegeri bite. Laboratory investigation revealed the following: prothrombin time > 100 s (international normalized ratio > 10), activated partial thromboplastin time > 100 s, fibrinogen < 50 mg/dL, and fibrin degradation product > 80 μg/mL. The patient recovered after administration of bivalent hemorrhagic antivenom, vitamin K, fresh frozen plasma and cryoprecipitate. The liver, directly involved in the acute phase reaction, is the main responsible for neutralization of animal toxins. Any patient with history of liver cirrhosis bitten by a venomous snake, even those whose venoms present low risk of coagulopathy, should be very carefully monitored for venom-induced consumptive coagulopathy (VICC), since the hemostatic balance may be disrupted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 22%
Student > Bachelor 2 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 11%
Lecturer 1 11%
Other 1 11%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 33%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 22%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 11%
Unknown 2 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 14 February 2017.
All research outputs
#9,618,589
of 12,526,623 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases
#221
of 321 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,469
of 342,119 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Venomous Animals and Toxins including Tropical Diseases
#11
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,526,623 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 321 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% 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 342,119 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.