↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Dietary interventions for preventing complications in idiopathic hypercalciuria

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 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 (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
17 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
250 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Dietary interventions for preventing complications in idiopathic hypercalciuria
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006022.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joaquin Escribano, Albert Balaguer, Marta Roqué i Figuls, Albert Feliu, Natalia Ferre

Abstract

Idiopathic hypercalciuria is an inherited metabolic abnormality that is characterised by excessive amounts of calcium excreted in the urine by people whose calcium serum levels are normal. Morbidity associated with idiopathic hypercalciuria is chiefly related to kidney stone disease and bone demineralisation leading to osteopenia and osteoporosis. Idiopathic hypercalciuria contributes to kidney stone disease at all life stages; people with the condition are prone to developing oxalate and calcium phosphate kidney stones. In some cases, crystallised calcium can be deposited in the renal interstitium, causing increased calcium levels in the kidneys. In children, idiopathic hypercalciuria can cause a range of comorbidities including recurrent macroscopic or microscopic haematuria, frequency dysuria syndrome, urinary tract infections and abdominal and lumbar pain. Various dietary interventions have been described that aim to decrease urinary calcium levels or urinary crystallisation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 17 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 250 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Unknown 245 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 48 19%
Student > Master 32 13%
Researcher 27 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 10%
Other 16 6%
Other 50 20%
Unknown 52 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 101 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 34 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 2%
Social Sciences 6 2%
Other 26 10%
Unknown 65 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. 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 December 2018.
All research outputs
#1,322,768
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,811
of 11,487 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,118
of 329,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#55
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 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 11,487 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 39.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 329,344 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.