↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Validity of urinary monoamine assay sales under the “spot baseline urinary neurotransmitter testing marketing model”

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Nephrology and Renovascular Disease, July 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Validity of urinary monoamine assay sales under the “spot baseline urinary neurotransmitter testing marketing model”
Published in
International Journal of Nephrology and Renovascular Disease, July 2011
DOI 10.2147/ijnrd.s22783
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marty Hinz, Alvin Stein, Thomas Uncini

Abstract

Spot baseline urinary monoamine assays have been used in medicine for over 50 years as a screening test for monoamine-secreting tumors, such as pheochromocytoma and carcinoid syndrome. In these disease states, when the result of a spot baseline monoamine assay is above the specific value set by the laboratory, it is an indication to obtain a 24-hour urine sample to make a definitive diagnosis. There are no defined applications where spot baseline urinary monoamine assays can be used to diagnose disease or other states directly. No peer-reviewed published original research exists which demonstrates that these assays are valid in the treatment of individual patients in the clinical setting. Since 2001, urinary monoamine assay sales have been promoted for numerous applications under the "spot baseline urinary neurotransmitter testing marketing model". There is no published peer-reviewed original research that defines the scientific foundation upon which the claims for these assays are made. On the contrary, several articles have been published that discredit various aspects of the model. To fill the void, this manuscript is a comprehensive review of the scientific foundation and claims put forth by laboratories selling urinary monoamine assays under the spot baseline urinary neurotransmitter testing marketing model.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 18%
Student > Bachelor 4 18%
Researcher 4 18%
Student > Postgraduate 3 14%
Lecturer 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 2 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 14%
Neuroscience 2 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 1 5%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 03 June 2021.
All research outputs
#13,017,074
of 22,469,480 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Nephrology and Renovascular Disease
#88
of 230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#69,325
of 100,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Nephrology and Renovascular Disease
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,469,480 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 230 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 100,995 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them