↓ Skip to main content

Diagnosis and management of hyponatraemia: AGREEing the guidelines

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Diagnosis and management of hyponatraemia: AGREEing the guidelines
Published in
BMC Medicine, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0277-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexander P Maxwell

Abstract

Hyponatraemia is a common electrolyte disorder associated with significant complications and controversies regarding its optimal management. Clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements have attempted to provide clinicians with evidence-based diagnostic and treatment strategies for hyponatraemia. Recently published guidance documents differ in their methods employed to review the quality of available evidence. Nagler et al. used the Appraisal of Guideline for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument in a systematic review of guidelines and consensus statements for the diagnosis and management of hyponatraemia. Nagler and colleagues highlighted the variability in methodological rigour applied to guideline development and inconsistencies between publications in relation to management of hyponatraemia (including the recommended rate of correction of a low serum sodium concentration). These differences could cause confusion for practising physicians managing patients with hyponatraemia.Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/231 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 47 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 18%
Student > Postgraduate 7 14%
Other 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 4 8%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 14 29%
Unknown 5 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 73%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Psychology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 7 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 February 2015.
All research outputs
#7,567,255
of 23,929,753 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,674
of 3,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,646
of 364,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#56
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,929,753 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,618 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 44.6. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 364,158 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.