↓ Skip to main content

Hemodialysis for lithium poisoning

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (69th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 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
Hemodialysis for lithium poisoning
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007951.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eric J Lavonas, Jennie Buchanan

Abstract

Lithium salts, particularly lithium carbonate, are frequently used to treat bipolar disorder and mania. Lithium poisoning, which can occur as a result of reduced renal elimination, prescribing error, drug-drug interactions, or deliberate overdosage, produces neurologic injury that can be permanent. Hemodialysis is often recommended to treat lithium poisoning. Although hemodialysis clearly enhances the elimination of lithium, it is unclear whether this translates into improved patient outcomes. Evidence from observational studies, generally of low methodological quality, shows similar outcomes in patients managed with or without the use of hemodialysis. To determine whether hemodialysis, applied in addition to standard therapy, reduces the likelihood, severity, or duration of neurological sequelae following lithium poisoning. We ran the search on 15 May 2015. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase Classic+Embase (OvidSP), CINAHL Plus, clinical trials registers and four other databases. We screened the reference lists of relevant studies, textbook chapters, and review articles, and performed a Google search to identify grey literature. In the context of this review, hemodialysis was defined as any extracorporeal technique to filter and extract toxicants from the serum, including all forms of hemodialysis, hemofiltration, and continuous renal replacement techniques, but not peritoneal dialysis. We included any clinical trials in which patients were randomly allocated to receive, or not receive, hemodialysis in addition to standard care for lithium poisoning. Two authors reviewed the abstracts of all identified articles. If either author identified an article as potentially meeting the inclusion criteria, both authors reviewed the full text of the article. No randomized controlled trials of hemodialysis therapy for lithium poisoning were identified. Although the use of hemodialysis to enhance the elimination of lithium in patients with lithium poisoning appears logical, there is no evidence from randomized controlled trials to support nor refute the use of hemodialysis in the management of patients with lithium poisoning.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 22%
Student > Master 8 22%
Unspecified 6 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 49%
Unspecified 6 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 11%
Psychology 4 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 8%
Other 2 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 30 May 2016.
All research outputs
#776,238
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,468
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,810
of 205,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#73
of 242 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 205,970 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 242 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its contemporaries.