| Title |
Endovascular treatment in patients with carotid artery dissection and intracranial occlusion: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuroradiology, June 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00234-017-1850-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jan W. Hoving, Henk A. Marquering, Charles B. L. M. Majoie |
| Abstract |
Recently, multiple randomised controlled trials showed efficacy of endovascular treatment over traditional care in patients with acute ischemic stroke due to an intracranial anterior circulation occlusion. Internal carotid artery (ICA) dissection with a concomitant intracranial occlusion is a rare but important cause of severe acute ischemic stroke. Although this subtype of acute ischemic stroke is mostly treated with endovascular treatment, treatment outcomes are still sparsely studied. This study assesses the clinical outcome and reperfusion rates by means of a systematic review. Electronic databases of PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched up to October 1, 2016 for articles describing endovascular treatment in patients with intracranial artery occlusion and ICA dissection. Sixteen studies were included in the analysis. Most studies showed favourable outcome and successful reperfusion. However, most included studies had a high risk of bias. In the reviewed studies, endovascular treatment in patients with ICA dissection and concomitant proximal intracranial occlusion was associated with favourable outcome. This could point in the direction of endovascular treatment being a beneficial treatment method for these patients. However, this review has only taken data of a limited group of patients into account. A pooled analysis of patients from recently published endovascular treatment trials and running registries is therefore recommended. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 3 | 25% |
| Canada | 2 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 17% |
| Italy | 1 | 8% |
| India | 1 | 8% |
| Germany | 1 | 8% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 1 | 8% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
| Scientists | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 73 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 12 | 16% |
| Other | 9 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 5% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 24 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 36% |
| Neuroscience | 4 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 1% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 36 | 49% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 31 August 2019.
All research outputs
#4,871,315
of 24,333,504 outputs
Outputs from Neuroradiology
#173
of 1,479 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#81,287
of 321,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuroradiology
#5
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,333,504 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,479 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 321,265 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.