↓ Skip to main content

Using Electrolyte Free Water Balance to Rationalize and Treat Dysnatremias

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
17 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
Using Electrolyte Free Water Balance to Rationalize and Treat Dysnatremias
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, April 2018
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2018.00103
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sanjeev R. Shah, Gautam Bhave

Abstract

Dysnatremias or abnormalities in plasma [Na+] are often termed disorders of water balance, an unclear physiologic concept often confused with changes in total fluid balance. However, most clinicians clearly recognize that hypertonic or hypotonic gains or losses alter plasma [Na+], while isotonic changes do not modify plasma [Na+]. This concept can be conceptualized as the electrolyte free water balance (EFWB), which defines the non-isotonic components of inputs and outputs to determine their effect on plasma [Na+]. EFWB is mathematically proportional to the rate of change in plasma [Na+] (dPNa/dt) and, therefore, is actively regulated to zero so that plasma [Na+] remains stable at its homeostatic set point. Dysnatremias are, therefore, disorders of EFWB and the relationship between EFWB and dPNa/dt provides a rationale for therapeutic strategies incorporating mass and volume balance. Herein, we leverage dPNa/dt as a desired rate of correction of plasma [Na+] to define a stepwise approach for the treatment of dysnatremias.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 17 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 24%
Unspecified 2 12%
Student > Postgraduate 2 12%
Student > Master 2 12%
Student > Bachelor 1 6%
Other 2 12%
Unknown 4 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 41%
Unspecified 2 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 6%
Unknown 6 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 08 March 2022.
All research outputs
#14,602,413
of 25,703,943 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#2,465
of 7,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#166,869
of 340,956 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#54
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,703,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,293 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 340,956 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.