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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Worsening cholestasis and possible cefuroxime-induced liver injury following “successful” therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for a distal common bile duct stone: a case report
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Medical Case Reports, December 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13256-016-1123-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Madunil Anuk Niriella, Ravindu Sujeewa Kumarasena, Anuradha Supun Dassanayake, Aloka Pathirana, Janaki de Silva Hewavisenthi, Hithanadura Janaka de Silva |
| Abstract |
Cefuroxime very rarely causes drug-induced liver injury. We present a case of a patient with paradoxical worsening of jaundice caused by cefuroxime-induced cholestasis following therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography for a distal common bile duct stone. A 51-year-old, previously healthy Sri Lankan man presented to our hospital with obstructive jaundice caused by a distal common bile duct stone. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with stone extraction, common bile duct clearance, and stenting failed to improve the cholestasis, with paradoxical worsening of his jaundice. A liver biopsy revealed features of drug-induced intrahepatic cholestasis. Although his case was complicated by an episode of cholangitis, the patient made a complete recovery in 4 months with supportive treatment and withdrawal of the offending drug. This case highlights a very rare drug-induced liver injury caused by cefuroxime as well as our approach to treating a patient with paradoxical worsening of jaundice after therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 11 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 11 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 18% |
| Professor | 1 | 9% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 9% |
| Librarian | 1 | 9% |
| Other | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 45% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 27% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 9% |
| Unknown | 2 | 18% |
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 23 January 2017.
All research outputs
#18,510,888
of 22,931,367 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#2,271
of 3,935 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#310,433
of 420,916 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Case Reports
#43
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,931,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,935 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 420,916 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.