↓ Skip to main content

Bench-to-bedside review: Rhabdomyolysis – an overview for clinicians

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, October 2004
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
28 X users
patent
1 patent
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
17 Wikipedia pages
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
713 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
599 Mendeley
connotea
1 Connotea
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
Bench-to-bedside review: Rhabdomyolysis – an overview for clinicians
Published in
Critical Care, October 2004
DOI 10.1186/cc2978
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana L Huerta-Alardín, Joseph Varon, Paul E Marik

Abstract

Rhabdomyolysis ranges from an asymptomatic illness with elevation in the creatine kinase level to a life-threatening condition associated with extreme elevations in creatine kinase, electrolyte imbalances, acute renal failure and disseminated intravascular coagulation. Muscular trauma is the most common cause of rhabdomyolysis. Less common causes include muscle enzyme deficiencies, electrolyte abnormalities, infectious causes, drugs, toxins and endocrinopathies. Weakness, myalgia and tea-colored urine are the main clinical manifestations. The most sensitive laboratory finding of muscle injury is an elevated plasma creatine kinase level. The management of patients with rhabdomyolysis includes early vigorous hydration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 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 599 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 5 <1%
United States 4 <1%
Spain 4 <1%
Japan 3 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
Turkey 2 <1%
Russia 2 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Uruguay 1 <1%
Other 8 1%
Unknown 567 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 96 16%
Researcher 82 14%
Student > Postgraduate 73 12%
Student > Master 56 9%
Student > Bachelor 56 9%
Other 144 24%
Unknown 92 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 339 57%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 31 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 29 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 4%
Sports and Recreations 14 2%
Other 52 9%
Unknown 110 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. 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 21 January 2024.
All research outputs
#1,103,343
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#891
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,232
of 75,627 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#1
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 75,627 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 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.