| Title |
Seizure prophylaxis in the neuroscience intensive care unit
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Intensive Care, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40560-018-0288-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sushma Yerram, Nakul Katyal, Keerthivaas Premkumar, Premkumar Nattanmai, Christopher R. Newey |
| Abstract |
Seizures are a considerable complication in critically ill patients. Their incidence is significantly high in neurosciences intensive care unit patients. Seizure prophylaxis with anti-epileptic drugs is a common practice in neurosciences intensive care unit. However, its utility in patients without clinical seizure, with an underlying neurological injury, is somewhat controversial. In this article, we have reviewed the evidence for seizure prophylaxis in commonly encountered neurological conditions in neurosciences intensive care unit and discussed the possible prognostic role of continuous electroencephalography monitoring in detecting early seizures in critically ill patients. Based on the current evidence and guidelines, we have proposed a presumptive protocol for seizure prophylaxis in neurosciences intensive care unit. Patients with severe traumatic brain injury and possible subarachnoid hemorrhage seem to benefit with a short course of anti-epileptic drug. In patients with other neurological illnesses, the use of continuous electroencephalography would make sense rather than indiscriminately administering anti-epileptic drug. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 23 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 13% |
| Spain | 2 | 9% |
| United States | 2 | 9% |
| Mexico | 1 | 4% |
| Chile | 1 | 4% |
| Argentina | 1 | 4% |
| Turkey | 1 | 4% |
| India | 1 | 4% |
| Ecuador | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 10 | 43% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 18 | 78% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 17% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 143 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 20 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 14% |
| Researcher | 17 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 8% |
| Other | 26 | 18% |
| Unknown | 35 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 57 | 40% |
| Neuroscience | 16 | 11% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 12 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Unknown | 41 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 April 2023.
All research outputs
#2,458,501
of 25,466,764 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Intensive Care
#120
of 580 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,929
of 347,600 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Intensive Care
#8
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,466,764 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 580 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 347,600 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.