↓ Skip to main content

The role of interventional radiology for pediatric blunt renal trauma

Overview of attention for article published in Italian Journal of Pediatrics, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 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
The role of interventional radiology for pediatric blunt renal trauma
Published in
Italian Journal of Pediatrics, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13052-015-0181-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wei-Ching Lin, Chien-Heng Lin

Abstract

This study aimed to appraise the role of interventional radiology in children with blunt renal trauma. The clinical data, injury severity score, days of hospital stay, outcomes and complications of pediatric renal trauma were recorded and evaluated. The two groups: the transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) group and the non-TAE group were compared for clinical features and laboratory data. Eighteen pediatric patients (12 boys, 6 girls with average age 12.4 ± 4.7 years) with blunt renal injury were included in the study. Six patients underwent angiography because of contrast medium extravasations in the kidney found on computed tomography of which four subsequently underwent a TAE. The clinical features and laboratory data of patients in the TAE and non-TAE groups were not significantly different. All patients were managed successfully by conservative treatment without complications except one in the non-TAE group who required nephrectomy due to renal arterial hypertension directly related to trauma. Both groups had relatively good results and all patients had normal renal function at follow-up. TAE is an alternative therapeutic modality for blunt renal injury in children who have contrast medium extravasations in the kidney on angiography.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 4 18%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 9%
Student > Master 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 6 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 45%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Unknown 8 36%

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 17 October 2015.
All research outputs
#5,338,231
of 6,278,272 outputs
Outputs from Italian Journal of Pediatrics
#228
of 318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,829
of 197,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Italian Journal of Pediatrics
#12
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,278,272 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 318 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 197,320 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.