↓ Skip to main content

Clinical review: Serious adverse events associated with the use of rituximab - a critical care perspective

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, August 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
139 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
243 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
Clinical review: Serious adverse events associated with the use of rituximab - a critical care perspective
Published in
Critical Care, August 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11304
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pashtoon M Kasi, Hussein A Tawbi, Chester V Oddis, Hrishikesh S Kulkarni

Abstract

ABSTRACT: The advent of biologic agents has provided a more specific and targeted approach to the treatment of various hematological malignancies and other autoimmune disorders. Such biologic agents have been relatively well tolerated with fewer adverse events reported as compared with many other chemotherapeutic agents. Rituximab is a monoclonal antibody to the B-cell marker CD20 and is a common biologic agent widely used for the treatment of B-cell lymphoma, lymphoproliferative disorders, and inflammatory conditions that are refractory to conventional treatment, including rheumatoid arthritis and some vasculitides. However, through randomized controlled trials and post-marketing surveillance, an increasing number of serious adverse events are being associated with the use of rituximab, often leading to or complicating an intensive care unit admission. The purpose of this review is to focus on the severe complications that are associated with the use of rituximab and that require critical care. Management and prevention strategies for the most common complications along with some examples of its uses within the critical care setting are also discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 243 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 242 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 40 16%
Researcher 30 12%
Student > Master 25 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 9%
Other 17 7%
Other 45 19%
Unknown 64 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 98 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 20 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 15 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 8 3%
Other 20 8%
Unknown 73 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 27 October 2021.
All research outputs
#3,689,031
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#2,822
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,830
of 187,863 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#18
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 187,863 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.