↓ Skip to main content

Evidence-Based Guidelines for the Management of Large Hemispheric Infarction

Overview of attention for article published in Neurocritical Care, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
14 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
133 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 Mendeley
Title
Evidence-Based Guidelines for the Management of Large Hemispheric Infarction
Published in
Neurocritical Care, January 2015
DOI 10.1007/s12028-014-0085-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michel T. Torbey, Julian Bösel, Denise H. Rhoney, Fred Rincon, Dimitre Staykov, Arun P. Amar, Panayiotis N. Varelas, Eric Jüttler, DaiWai Olson, Hagen B. Huttner, Klaus Zweckberger, Kevin N. Sheth, Christian Dohmen, Ansgar M. Brambrink, Stephan A. Mayer, Osama O. Zaidat, Werner Hacke, Stefan Schwab

Abstract

Large hemispheric infarction (LHI), also known as malignant middle cerebral infarction, is a devastating disease associated with significant disability and mortality. Clinicians and family members are often faced with a paucity of high quality clinical data as they attempt to determine the most appropriate course of treatment for patients with LHI, and current stroke guidelines do not provide a detailed approach regarding the day-to-day management of these complicated patients. To address this need, the Neurocritical Care Society organized an international multidisciplinary consensus conference on the critical care management of LHI. Experts from neurocritical care, neurosurgery, neurology, interventional neuroradiology, and neuroanesthesiology from Europe and North America were recruited based on their publications and expertise. The panel devised a series of clinical questions related to LHI, and assessed the quality of data related to these questions using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation guideline system. They then developed recommendations (denoted as strong or weak) based on the quality of the evidence, as well as the balance of benefits and harms of the studied interventions, the values and preferences of patients, and resource considerations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 162 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 32 20%
Researcher 26 16%
Student > Postgraduate 15 9%
Student > Bachelor 12 7%
Student > Master 12 7%
Other 35 21%
Unknown 31 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 85 52%
Neuroscience 21 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 2%
Other 10 6%
Unknown 34 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 05 September 2021.
All research outputs
#2,766,950
of 25,292,378 outputs
Outputs from Neurocritical Care
#240
of 1,725 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,161
of 363,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurocritical Care
#2
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,292,378 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,725 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 363,828 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.