↓ Skip to main content

Early and late renal adverse effects after potentially nephrotoxic treatment for childhood cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
138 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
Early and late renal adverse effects after potentially nephrotoxic treatment for childhood cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008944.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sebastiaan L Knijnenburg, Renée L Mulder, Antoinette YN Schouten-Van Meeteren, Arend Bökenkamp, Hester Blufpand, Eline van Dulmen-den Broeder, Margreet A Veening, Leontien CM Kremer, Monique WM Jaspers

Abstract

Great improvements in diagnostics and treatment for malignant disease in childhood have led to a major increase in survival. However, childhood cancer survivors (CCS) are at great risk for developing adverse effects caused by multimodal treatment for their malignancy. Nephrotoxicity is one of these known (acute) side effects of several treatments, including cisplatin, carboplatin, ifosfamide, radiotherapy and nephrectomy, and can cause glomerular filtration rate impairment, proteinuria, tubulopathy and hypertension. However, evidence about the long-term effects of these treatments on renal function remains inconclusive. To reduce the number of (long-term) nephrotoxic events in CCS, it is important to know the risk of, and risk factors for, early and late renal adverse effects, so that ultimately treatment and screening protocols can be adjusted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 tweeters 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 138 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Ireland 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Unknown 135 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 25 18%
Researcher 24 17%
Student > Bachelor 18 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Unspecified 15 11%
Other 40 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 52%
Unspecified 23 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Social Sciences 6 4%
Other 16 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 19 April 2016.
All research outputs
#3,113,742
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,446
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,233
of 162,568 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#53
of 104 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 162,568 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 104 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.