↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Early recognition of intraventricular hemorrhage in the setting of thrombocytosis in the emergency department

Overview of attention for article published in Open access emergency medicine OAEM, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
Title
Early recognition of intraventricular hemorrhage in the setting of thrombocytosis in the emergency department
Published in
Open access emergency medicine OAEM, May 2016
DOI 10.2147/oaem.s98440
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marvinia Charles, Romy Fontoura, Gregory Sugalski

Abstract

Thrombocytosis is frequently encountered as an incidental laboratory finding since isolated thrombocytosis is often asymptomatic. Even though thrombocytosis is benign and self-limiting in most cases, it can at times result in thrombosis or hemorrhage. The most common type of thrombocytosis is reactive (secondary) thrombocytosis and can be due to infections, trauma, surgery, or occult malignancy. Since thrombocytosis is a known risk factor for thrombosis, it is commonly a concern for ischemic stroke and myocardial infarction. Much less common are hemorrhagic events associated with thrombocytosis. Studies have shown that when hemorrhage is present in patients with thrombocytosis, it is most often seen in the setting of chronic myelogenous leukemia and essential thrombocythemia. In essential thrombocythemia, the overall risk of bleeding and thrombosis is 0.33% per patient-year and 6.6% per patient-year, respectively. In the general population, the risk of bleeding and thrombosis is 0% and 1.2%, respectively. The present study is a case report of an 83-year-old man who presented to the emergency department with hypertension and headache, who was then found to have significant thrombocytosis (platelets >1,000×10(9)/L) and acute right intraventricular hemorrhage without any signs of neurological deficits, or evidence of vascular malformations or mass. We present this case report for review and discussion of some of the challenges and considerations associated with the management of such patients.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

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 > Master 5 23%
Student > Bachelor 4 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 4 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 18%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 9%
Neuroscience 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 4 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 May 2016.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Open access emergency medicine OAEM
#150
of 230 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#191,104
of 311,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open access emergency medicine OAEM
#3
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 230 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 311,864 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.