↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Changes in urinary nanocrystallites in calcium oxalate stone formers before and after potassium citrate intake

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nanomedicine, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Changes in urinary nanocrystallites in calcium oxalate stone formers before and after potassium citrate intake
Published in
International Journal of Nanomedicine, March 2013
DOI 10.2147/ijn.s39642
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chao-Yang Duan, Zhi-Yue Xia, Guang-Na Zhang, Bao-Song Gui, Jun-Fa Xue, Jian-Ming Ouyang

Abstract

The property changes of urinary nanocrystallites in 13 patients with calcium oxalate (CaOx) stones were studied before and after ingestion of potassium citrate (K3cit), a therapeutic drug for stones. The analytical techniques included nanoparticle size analysis, transmission electron microscopy, X-ray diffraction, and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy. The studied properties included the components, morphologies, zeta potentials, particle size distributions, light intensity autocorrelation curves, and polydispersity indices (PDIs) of the nanocrystallites. The main components of the urinary nanocrystallites before K3cit intake included uric acid, β-calcium phosphate, and calcium oxalate monohydrate. After K3cit intake, the quantities, species, and percentages of aggregated crystals decreased, whereas the percentages of monosodium urate and calcium oxalate dehydrate increased, and some crystallites became blunt. Moreover, the urinary pH increased from 5.96 ± 0.43 to 6.46 ± 0.50, the crystallite size decreased from 524 ± 320 nm to 354 ± 173 nm, and the zeta potential decreased from -4.85 ± 2.87 mV to -8.77 ± 3.03 mV. The autocorrelation curves became smooth, the decay time decreased from 11.4 ± 3.2 ms to 4.3 ± 1.7 ms, and the PDI decreased from 0.67 ± 0.14 to 0.53 ± 0.19. These changes helped inhibit CaOx calculus formation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Malaysia 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 14%
Other 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Other 7 24%
Unknown 6 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 10%
Materials Science 3 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Other 9 31%
Unknown 8 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 March 2013.
All research outputs
#22,778,604
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#3,599
of 4,122 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#182,313
of 206,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nanomedicine
#58
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,122 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 206,397 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 66 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.