↓ Skip to main content

Inhaled medicinal cannabis and the immunocompromised patient

Overview of attention for article published in Supportive Care in Cancer, September 2014
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 (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
13 tweeters
facebook
9 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
Inhaled medicinal cannabis and the immunocompromised patient
Published in
Supportive Care in Cancer, September 2014
DOI 10.1007/s00520-014-2429-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rosa Ruchlemer, Michal Amit-Kohn, David Raveh, Lumír Hanuš

Abstract

Medicinal cannabis is an invaluable adjunct therapy for pain relief, nausea, anorexia, and mood modification in cancer patients and is available as cookies or cakes, as sublingual drops, as a vaporized mist, or for smoking. However, as with every herb, various microorganisms are carried on its leaves and flowers which when inhaled could expose the user, in particular immunocompromised patients, to the risk of opportunistic lung infections, primarily from inhaled molds. The objective of this study was to identify the safest way of using medicinal cannabis in immunosuppressed patients by finding the optimal method of sterilization with minimal loss of activity of cannabis. We describe the results of culturing the cannabis herb, three methods of sterilization, and the measured loss of a main cannabinoid compound activity. Systematic sterilization of medicinal cannabis can eliminate the risk of fatal opportunistic infections associated with cannabis among patients at risk.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Unknown 74 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 27%
Student > Bachelor 14 19%
Other 9 12%
Student > Master 7 9%
Student > Postgraduate 5 7%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 11 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 7%
Chemistry 3 4%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 13 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 August 2019.
All research outputs
#714,252
of 13,877,211 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#78
of 2,768 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,645
of 207,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#1
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,877,211 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,768 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 207,127 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 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 97% of its contemporaries.