↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

An update on purple urine bag syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of General Medicine, August 2012
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 (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
Title
An update on purple urine bag syndrome
Published in
International Journal of General Medicine, August 2012
DOI 10.2147/ijgm.s35320
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yoshiro Hadano, Shimizu, Takada, Inoue, Sorano, Taro Shimizu, Shimon Takada, Toshiya Inoue, Sumire Sorano

Abstract

Purple urine bag syndrome is characterized by the urinary drainage bag turning purple in patients on prolonged urinary catheterization, especially those in the bedridden state. It is associated with bacterial urinary tract infections caused by indigo-producing and indirubin-producing bacteria, usually affects women, and is associated with alkaline urine, constipation, and a high bacterial load in the urine. Almost all patients with purple urine bag syndrome are catheterized due to significant disability, and the urinary pH is 7.0 or more. In general, intensive treatment with antibiotics is not recommended. Purple urine bag syndrome per se almost always appears to be asymptomatic and harmless. However, caution is needed, because some cases have been reported to show progression to severe disease states, so further research into the morbidity and mortality of this infection is warranted.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 2%
Colombia 1 2%
Unknown 40 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 19%
Researcher 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Postgraduate 5 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Other 9 21%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 62%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 8 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 August 2016.
All research outputs
#1,125,951
of 8,200,733 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of General Medicine
#51
of 337 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,732
of 99,893 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of General Medicine
#8
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,200,733 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 337 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 99,893 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.