↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

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

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 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

Calvin Hoi Kwan Mak, Yeow Yuen Lu, George Kwok Chu Wong

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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 132 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 130 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 13%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Student > Master 15 11%
Student > Postgraduate 12 9%
Other 11 8%
Other 32 24%
Unknown 28 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 9%
Neuroscience 7 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Unspecified 2 2%
Other 7 5%
Unknown 33 25%
Attention Score in Context

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
#14,600,874
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#411
of 804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,556
of 206,711 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#7
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 804 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.3. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% 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 206,711 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.