↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Review and recommendations on management of refractory raised intracranial pressure in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage

Overview of attention for article published in Vascular Health and Risk Management, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 Mendeley
Title
Review and recommendations on management of refractory raised intracranial pressure in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage
Published in
Vascular Health and Risk Management, July 2013
DOI 10.2147/vhrm.s34046
Pubmed ID
Authors

George Wong, Mak, Gabriel Lu Yeow Yuen

Abstract

Intracranial hypertension is commonly encountered in poor-grade aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients. Refractory raised intracranial pressure is associated with poor prognosis. The management of raised intracranial pressure is commonly referenced to experiences in traumatic brain injury. However, pathophysiologically, aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage is different from traumatic brain injury. Currently, there is a paucity of consensus on the management of refractory raised intracranial pressure in spontaneous subarachnoid hemorrhage. We discuss in this paper the role of hyperosmolar agents, hypothermia, barbiturates, and decompressive craniectomy in managing raised intracranial pressure refractory to first-line treatment, in which preliminary data supported the use of hypertonic saline and secondary decompressive craniectomy. Future clinical trials should be carried out to delineate better their roles in management of raised intracranial pressure in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 104 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 102 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 15%
Student > Master 15 14%
Student > Postgraduate 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Other 10 10%
Other 27 26%
Unknown 9 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 68 65%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 <1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 <1%
Other 5 5%
Unknown 16 15%

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 October 2015.
All research outputs
#2,273,213
of 6,418,914 outputs
Outputs from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#114
of 353 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,949
of 99,283 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#4
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,418,914 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 63rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 353 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 99,283 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 79% of its contemporaries.