↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Clinical characteristics of zinc phosphide poisoning in Thailand

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, March 2017
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 (88th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
37 Mendeley
Title
Clinical characteristics of zinc phosphide poisoning in Thailand
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, March 2017
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s129610
Pubmed ID
Authors

Satariya Trakulsrichai, Natcha Kosanyawat, Pongsakorn Atiksawedparit, Charuwan Sriapha, Achara Tongpoo, Umaporn Udomsubpayakul, Panee Rittilert, Winai Wananukul

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to describe the clinical characteristics and outcomes of poisoning by zinc phosphide, a common rodenticide in Thailand, and to evaluate whether these outcomes can be prognosticated by the clinical presentation. A 3-year retrospective cohort study was performed using data from the Ramathibodi Poison Center Toxic Exposure Surveillance System. In total, 455 poisonings were identified. Most were males (60.5%) and from the central region of Thailand (71.0%). The mean age was 39.91±19.15 years. The most common route of exposure was oral (99.3%). Most patients showed normal vital signs, oxygen saturation, and consciousness at the first presentation. The three most common clinical presentations were gastrointestinal (GI; 68.8%), cardiovascular (22.0%), and respiratory (13.8%) signs and symptoms. Most patients had normal blood chemistry laboratory results and chest X-ray findings at presentation. The median hospital stay was 2 days, and the mortality rate was 7%. Approximately 70% of patients underwent GI decontamination, including gastric lavage and a single dose of activated charcoal. In all, 31 patients were intubated and required ventilator support. Inotropic drugs were given to 4.2% of patients. Four moribund patients also received hyperinsulinemia-euglycemia therapy and intravenous hydrocortisone; however, all died. Patients who survived and died showed significant differences in age, duration from taking zinc phosphide to hospital presentation, abnormal vital signs at presentation (tachycardia, low blood pressure, and tachypnea), acidosis, hypernatremia, hyperkalemia, in-hospital acute kidney injury, in-hospital hypoglycemia, endotracheal tube intubation, and inotropic requirement during hospitalization (P<0.05). Zinc phosphide poisoning causes fatalities. Most patients have mild symptoms, and GI symptoms are the most common. Patients who present with abnormal vital signs or electrolytes might have more severe poisoning and should be closely monitored and aggressively treated. All patients should be observed in the hospital for 2 days and followed up for cardiovascular and respiratory symptoms, electrolyte balances, kidney function, and blood glucose.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 37 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 16%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 4 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Researcher 3 8%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 11 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 8%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 13 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 11 September 2022.
All research outputs
#1,933,456
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#82
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,851
of 324,443 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#3
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 324,443 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.