| Title |
Post-dural puncture headache
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of General Medicine, January 2012
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijgm.s17834 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ahmed Ghaleb, Arjang Khorasani, Devanand Mangar |
| Abstract |
Since August Bier reported the first case in 1898, post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) has been a problem for patients following dural puncture. Clinical and laboratory research over the last 30 years has shown that use of smaller-gauge needles, particularly of the pencil-point design, are associated with a lower risk of PDPH than traditional cutting point needle tips (Quincke-point needle). A careful history can rule out other causes of headache. A postural component of headache is the sine qua non of PDPH. In high-risk patients < 50 years, post-partum, in the event a large-gauge needle puncture is initiated, an epidural blood patch should be performed within 24-48 hours of dural puncture. The optimum volume of blood has been shown to be 12-20 mL for adult patients. Complications caused by autologous epidural blood patching (AEBP) are rare. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 60 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 13% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Researcher | 7 | 11% |
| Professor | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 19 | 31% |
| Unknown | 6 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 38 | 62% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 12 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 05 June 2016.
All research outputs
#7,374,039
of 22,716,996 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of General Medicine
#341
of 1,437 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,417
of 244,177 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of General Medicine
#12
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,716,996 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,437 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 244,177 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 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 52% of its contemporaries.