| Title |
Does the subspecialty of an intensive care unit (ICU) has an impact on outcome in patients suffering from aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neurosurgical Review, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10143-018-0973-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Dorothee Mielke, Vesna Malinova, Onnen Moerer, Patricia Suntheim, Martin Voit, Veit Rohde |
| Abstract |
We retrospectively compared the outcome of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) patients treated in a neurosurgical ICU (nICU) between 1990 and 2005 with that of patients treated in a general ICU (gICU) between 2005 and 2013 with almost identical treatment strategies. Among other parameters, we registered the initial Hunt and Hess grade, Fisher score, the incidence of vasospasm, and outcome. A multivariate analysis (logistic regression model) was performed to adjust for different variables. In total, 755 patients were included in this study with 456 patients assigned to the nICU and 299 patients to the gICU. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed no significant difference between the patient outcome treated in a nICU versus gICU after adjusting for different variables. The outcome of patients after aSAH is not influenced by the type of ICU (gICU versus nICU). The data do not allow claiming that aSAH patients need to be treated in a specialized ICU for obtaining better results. Parameters which might differ from hospital to hospital, especially warranty of neurosurgical expertise on gICU, have the potential to influence the results. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 6 | 50% |
| Italy | 1 | 8% |
| Argentina | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 4 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 83% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 17% |
| Librarian | 2 | 11% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 44% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 11% |
| Psychology | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 7 | 39% |
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 12 November 2019.
All research outputs
#4,548,445
of 23,036,991 outputs
Outputs from Neurosurgical Review
#34
of 634 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,047
of 329,486 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurosurgical Review
#2
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,036,991 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 634 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 329,486 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.