↓ Skip to main content

Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) Guidelines for Rasburicase Therapy in the Context of G6PD Deficiency Genotype

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
Title
Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) Guidelines for Rasburicase Therapy in the Context of G6PD Deficiency Genotype
Published in
Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, May 2014
DOI 10.1038/clpt.2014.97
Pubmed ID
Authors

M V Relling, E M McDonagh, T Chang, K E Caudle, H L McLeod, C E Haidar, T Klein, L Luzzatto

Abstract

Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency is associated with development of acute hemolytic anemia (AHA) induced by a number of drugs. We provide guidance as to which G6PD genotypes are associated with G6PD deficiency in males and females. Rasburicase is contraindicated in G6PD-deficient patients due to the risk of AHA and possibly methemoglobinemia. Unless preemptive genotyping has established a positive diagnosis of G6PD deficiency, quantitative enzyme assay remains the mainstay of screening prior to rasburicase use. The purpose of this article is to help interpret the results of clinical G6PD genotype tests so that they can guide the use of rasburicase. Detailed guidelines on other aspects of the use of rasburicase, including analyses of cost-effectiveness, are beyond the scope of this document. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium (CPIC) guidelines are published and updated periodically on https://www.pharmgkb.org/page/cpic to reflect new developments in the field.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 99 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 17%
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Other 26 26%
Unknown 11 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 23 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 22 22%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 19 19%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 15 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 29 October 2019.
All research outputs
#4,507,527
of 16,765,610 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
#1,035
of 3,512 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,996
of 197,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics
#7
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,765,610 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,512 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 197,127 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.