↓ Skip to main content

A Review of Emergency Cardiopulmonary Bypass for Severe Poisoning by Cardiotoxic Drugs

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Toxicology, December 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#25 of 454)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
41 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
35 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
A Review of Emergency Cardiopulmonary Bypass for Severe Poisoning by Cardiotoxic Drugs
Published in
Journal of Medical Toxicology, December 2012
DOI 10.1007/s13181-012-0281-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas J. Johnson, David F. Gaieski, Steven R. Allen, Jeanmarie Perrone, Francis DeRoos

Abstract

Cardiovascular collapse remains a leading cause of death in severe acute drug intoxication. Commonly prescribed medications such as antidysrhythmics, calcium channel antagonists, and beta adrenergic receptor antagonists can cause refractory cardiovascular collapse in massive overdose. Emergency cardiopulmonary bypass (ECPB), a modality originating in cardiac surgery, is a rescue technique that has been successfully implemented in the treatment of refractory cardiogenic shock and cardiac arrest unresponsive to traditional medical interventions. More recently a growing number of animal studies, case reports, and case series have documented its use in refractory hemodynamic collapse in poisoned patients. This article will review current ECPB techniques and explore its growing role in the treatment of severely hemodynamically compromised poisoned patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 41 tweeters 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 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 6%
Unknown 31 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 10 30%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 21%
Researcher 4 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 5 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 85%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 42. 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 28 November 2016.
All research outputs
#391,072
of 13,236,667 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#25
of 454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,712
of 159,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Toxicology
#2
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,236,667 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 454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 159,149 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 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.