↓ Skip to main content

Gastrointestinal Prophylaxis in Neurocritical Care

Overview of attention for article published in Neurocritical Care, July 2011
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
Gastrointestinal Prophylaxis in Neurocritical Care
Published in
Neurocritical Care, July 2011
DOI 10.1007/s12028-011-9580-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Clemens M. Schirmer, Joshua Kornbluth, Carl B. Heilman, Anish Bhardwaj

Abstract

The aim of this study is to review and summarize the relevant literature regarding pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic methods of prophylaxis against gastrointestinal (GI) stress ulceration, and upper gastrointestinal bleeding in critically ill patients. Stress ulcers are a known complication of a variety of critical illnesses. The literature regarding epidemiology and management of stress ulcers and complications thereof, is vast and mostly encompasses patients in medical and surgical intensive care units. This article aims to extrapolate meaningful data for use with a population of critically ill neurologic and neurosurgical patients in the neurological intensive care unit setting. Studies were identified from the Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials and NLM PubMed for English articles dealing with an adult population. We also scanned bibliographies of relevant studies. The results show that H(2)A, sucralfate, and PPI all reduce the incidence of UGIB in neurocritically ill patients, but H(2)A blockers may cause encephalopathy and interact with anticonvulsant drugs, and have been associated with higher rates of nosocomial pneumonias, but causation remains unproven and controversial. For these reasons, we advocate against routine use of H(2)A for GI prophylaxis in neurocritical patients. There is a paucity of high-level evidence studies that apply to the neurocritical care population. From this study, it is concluded that stress ulcer prophylaxis among critically ill neurologic and neurosurgical patients is important in preventing ulcer-related GI hemorrhage that contributes to both morbidity and mortality. Further, prospective trials are needed to elucidate which methods of prophylaxis are most appropriate and efficacious for specific illnesses in this population.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Poland 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 71 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Other 10 13%
Researcher 10 13%
Student > Postgraduate 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 7 9%
Other 18 24%
Unknown 10 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 63%
Neuroscience 5 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 12 16%
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 28 January 2013.
All research outputs
#20,180,477
of 22,694,633 outputs
Outputs from Neurocritical Care
#1,391
of 1,493 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,874
of 116,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurocritical Care
#21
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,694,633 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,493 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 116,758 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.