| Title |
Cryptogenic Stroke: How to Define It? How to Treat It?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Cardiology Reports, October 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11886-013-0423-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ava L. Liberman, Shyam Prabhakaran |
| Abstract |
Stroke is a leading cause of disability worldwide. Cryptogenic strokes (CS) account for almost a quarter of ischemic strokes despite modern diagnostic evaluation. A working definition of CS based on stroke classification systems is essential for accurate conceptualization of this common entity. Mechanistic categories (potential paradoxical embolism; atherosclerotic disease of the aorta or supra-aortic vasculature; and occult arrhythmia) should aide in parsing the often heterogeneous mix of conditions included in the CS subtype. Despite efforts to unravel mechanisms of CS, specific or targeted recurrent stroke prevention strategies are lacking. For example, recent trials have shown no clear benefit of patent foramen ovale closure in stroke prevention after CS. There are promising ongoing clinical trials that will address appropriate diagnostic evaluations in CS as well as novel therapeutic interventions. Overall, a standardized approach must be framed to diagnose and manage patients with CS and guide clinical practice and future research. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 30% |
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 15% |
| Professor | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 2 | 10% |
| Unknown | 4 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 55% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 5% |
| Linguistics | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 6 | 30% |
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 24 April 2019.
All research outputs
#17,706,524
of 22,736,112 outputs
Outputs from Current Cardiology Reports
#692
of 995 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#149,958
of 209,664 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Cardiology Reports
#12
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,736,112 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 995 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 209,664 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.