↓ Skip to main content

„Chronische zerebrospinale venöse Insuffizienz“ und Multiple Sklerose

Overview of attention for article published in Der Nervenarzt, April 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 Mendeley
Title
„Chronische zerebrospinale venöse Insuffizienz“ und Multiple Sklerose
Published in
Der Nervenarzt, April 2010
DOI 10.1007/s00115-010-2972-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

C. Krogias, A. Schröder, H. Wiendl, R. Hohlfeld, R. Gold

Abstract

Currently, the hypothesis that altered venous hemodynamics might play a causative role in the pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis (MS) is being controversially discussed. This new "venous hypothesis" postulates that obstructions of the cervical venous system cause an increased pressure of the intracranial venous system and that in turn intracranial congestion disintegrates the blood-brain barrier initiating the inflammatory process in MS.The "venous hypothesis" is analyzed and evaluated with regard to the following aspects: first concerning the validity of published data, second with regard to the plausibility in view of the currently approved pathogenetic model of MS, and third with regard to the compatibility with preliminary neurosonological findings in a small but unselected cohort of patients at our department.The authors conclude that the "chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI)" cannot represent the exclusive pathogenetic factor in the pathogenesis of MS. In our cohort, only 20% of the patients fulfilled the required neurosonological features of CCSVI. So far, the pathogenetic relevance of these findings remains speculative. Thus, based on the current scientific position we cannot justify invasive "therapeutic" approaches, especially if they are performed outside of clinical trials.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 20%
Unknown 8 80%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 2 20%
Unknown 8 80%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 January 2021.
All research outputs
#4,863,939
of 23,794,258 outputs
Outputs from Der Nervenarzt
#155
of 905 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,609
of 97,200 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Der Nervenarzt
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,794,258 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 905 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 97,200 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.