↓ Skip to main content

Hypercalcemia and acute renal insufficiency following use of a veterinary supplement

Overview of attention for article published in Jornal Brasileiro de Nefrologia, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 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
Hypercalcemia and acute renal insufficiency following use of a veterinary supplement
Published in
Jornal Brasileiro de Nefrologia, January 2017
DOI 10.5935/0101-2800.20170082
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marcelo Fernando Ronsoni, Heloisa de Cassia dos Santos, Bruno da Silveira Colombo, Carina Gabriela Correa, Ana Paula Gomes Moritz, Marisa Helena Cesar Coral, Simone Van de Sande-Lee, Alexandre Hohl

Abstract

A previously healthy 24 yo male presented with a two-month history of epigastric pain, nausea, vomiting, fatigue and malaise. He reported abuse of different substances, including an injectable veterinary vitamin compound, which contains high doses of vitamin A, D and E, and an oily vehicle that induces local edema and enhances muscle volume. Serum creatinine was 3.1 mg/dL, alanine transaminase 160 mg/dL, aspartate transaminase 11 mg/dL, total testosterone 23 ng/dL, 25-OH-vitamin D >150 ng/mL (toxicity >100), 1,25-OH-vitamin D 80 pg/mL, vitamin A 0.7 mg/dL, parathormone <3 pg/mL, total calcium 13.6 mg/dL, 24-hour urinary calcium 635 mg/24h (RV 42-353). A urinary tract ultrasound demonstrated signs of parenchymal nephropathy. The diagnosis was hypercalcemia and acute renal failure secondary to vitamin D intoxication. He was initially treated with intravenous hydration, furosemide and prednisone. On the fifth day of hospitalization a dose of pamidronate disodium was added. The patient evolved with serum calcium and renal function normalization. Thirty days later he presented normal clinical and laboratory tests, except 25-OH-vitamin D that was persistently increased (107 ng/mL), as it may take several months to normalize. This case report is a warning of the risks related to the use of veterinary substances for aesthetics purposes.

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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 19 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 21%
Student > Postgraduate 2 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 11%
Other 1 5%
Student > Master 1 5%
Other 3 16%
Unknown 6 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 5%
Social Sciences 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 6 32%

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 11 January 2018.
All research outputs
#12,481,208
of 14,113,807 outputs
Outputs from Jornal Brasileiro de Nefrologia
#57
of 57 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#335,131
of 397,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Jornal Brasileiro de Nefrologia
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,113,807 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 57 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 397,980 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them