↓ Skip to main content

Can carbon monoxide-poisoned victims be organ donors?

Overview of attention for article published in Medical Gas Research, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#29 of 357)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
25 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 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
Can carbon monoxide-poisoned victims be organ donors?
Published in
Medical Gas Research, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/2045-9912-4-13
Pubmed ID
Authors

Noritomo Fujisaki, Atsunori Nakao, Takaaki Osako, Takeshi Nishimura, Taihei Yamada, Keisuke Kohama, Hiroyuki Sakata, Michiko Ishikawa-Aoyama, Joji Kotani

Abstract

The increasing demand for organ allografts to treat end-stage organ failure has driven changes in traditional donor criteria. Patients who have succumbed to carbon monoxide (CO) poisoning, a common cause of toxicological mortality, are usually rejected as organ donors. To fulfill the increasing demand, selection criteria must be expanded to include CO-poisoned donors. However, the use of allografts exposed to high CO concentrations is still under debate. Basic research and literature review data suggest that patients with brain death caused by CO poisoning should be considered appropriate organ donors. Accepting organs from CO-poisoned victims could increase the number of potential donors and lower the death rate of patients on the waiting lists. This review and reported cases may increase awareness among emergency department physicians, as well as transplant teams, that patients dying of CO exposure may be acceptable organ donors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 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 %
Student > Bachelor 3 18%
Researcher 2 12%
Other 2 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 12%
Student > Master 2 12%
Other 5 29%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 59%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Mathematics 1 6%
Unknown 5 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 17 August 2022.
All research outputs
#1,320,404
of 25,844,815 outputs
Outputs from Medical Gas Research
#29
of 357 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,732
of 240,404 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medical Gas Research
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,844,815 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 357 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 240,404 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 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