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 |
Beyond muscle destruction: a systematic review of rhabdomyolysis for clinical practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, June 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13054-016-1314-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luis O. Chavez, Monica Leon, Sharon Einav, Joseph Varon |
| Abstract |
Rhabdomyolysis is a clinical syndrome that comprises destruction of skeletal muscle with outflow of intracellular muscle content into the bloodstream. There is a great heterogeneity in the literature regarding definition, epidemiology, and treatment. The aim of this systematic literature review was to summarize the current state of knowledge regarding the epidemiologic data, definition, and management of rhabdomyolysis. A systematic search was conducted using the keywords "rhabdomyolysis" and "crush syndrome" covering all articles from January 2006 to December 2015 in three databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and ScienceDirect). The search was divided into two steps: first, all articles that included data regarding definition, pathophysiology, and diagnosis were identified, excluding only case reports; then articles of original research with humans that reported epidemiological data (e.g., risk factors, common etiologies, and mortality) or treatment of rhabdomyolysis were identified. Information was summarized and organized based on these topics. The search generated 5632 articles. After screening titles and abstracts, 164 articles were retrieved and read: 56 articles met the final inclusion criteria; 23 were reviews (narrative or systematic); 16 were original articles containing epidemiological data; and six contained treatment specifications for patients with rhabdomyolysis. Most studies defined rhabdomyolysis based on creatine kinase values five times above the upper limit of normal. Etiologies differ among the adult and pediatric populations and no randomized controlled trials have been done to compare intravenous fluid therapy alone versus intravenous fluid therapy with bicarbonate and/or mannitol. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 67 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Argentina | 8 | 12% |
| United Kingdom | 6 | 9% |
| Mexico | 3 | 4% |
| Colombia | 3 | 4% |
| France | 2 | 3% |
| Brazil | 2 | 3% |
| Spain | 2 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| South Africa | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 6 | 9% |
| Unknown | 33 | 49% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 51 | 76% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 13 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 437 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Mexico | 1 | <1% |
| New Zealand | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 433 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 72 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 62 | 14% |
| Researcher | 44 | 10% |
| Other | 41 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 30 | 7% |
| Other | 78 | 18% |
| Unknown | 110 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 199 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 34 | 8% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 18 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 14 | 3% |
| Sports and Recreations | 11 | 3% |
| Other | 41 | 9% |
| Unknown | 120 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 68. 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
#626,464
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#419
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,436
of 367,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#13
of 107 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th 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 particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 367,844 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 107 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.