↓ Skip to main content

Why eating star fruit is prohibited for patients with chronic kidney disease?

Overview of attention for article published in Jornal Brasileiro de Nefrologia, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 106)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Why eating star fruit is prohibited for patients with chronic kidney disease?
Published in
Jornal Brasileiro de Nefrologia, January 2015
DOI 10.5935/0101-2800.20150037
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eduarda Savino Moreira de Oliveira, Aline Silva de Aguiar

Abstract

New studies have shown the mechanism by which the star fruit (Averrhoa carambola) becomes toxic to individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The aim of this study was to review the current literature on the topic. This is a review article, with publications from 2000 to 2014 available in scientific database. There are reports that neurotoxicity is due to the presence of oxalate in star fruit, but recent findings show that the neurotoxic effect of the toxin is by caramboxin, which appears to inhibit the GABAergic system which is the major inhibitory system in the central nervous system (CNS), involving changes as sobs and confusion, to more serious conditions such as seizures and death. It is important to multidisciplinary action to alert patients with CKD as the prohibition of the star fruit consumption.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 20%
Researcher 8 16%
Other 4 8%
Student > Master 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 15 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 31%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 8%
Chemistry 3 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 15 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 26. 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 August 2021.
All research outputs
#993,163
of 18,873,384 outputs
Outputs from Jornal Brasileiro de Nefrologia
#1
of 106 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,396
of 386,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Jornal Brasileiro de Nefrologia
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,873,384 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 106 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 386,745 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.