↓ Skip to main content

Doppler Non-invasive Monitoring of ICP in an Animal Model of Acute Intracranial Hypertension

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

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
39 Mendeley
Title
Doppler Non-invasive Monitoring of ICP in an Animal Model of Acute Intracranial Hypertension
Published in
Neurocritical Care, August 2015
DOI 10.1007/s12028-015-0163-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chiara Robba, Joseph Donnelly, Rita Bertuetti, Danilo Cardim, Mypinder S. Sekhon, Marcel Aries, Peter Smielewski, Hugh Richards, Marek Czosnyka

Abstract

In many neurological diseases, intracranial pressure (ICP) is elevated and needs to be actively managed. ICP is typically measured with an invasive transducer, which carries risks. Non-invasive techniques for monitoring ICP (nICP) have been developed. The aim of this study was to compare three different methods of transcranial Doppler (TCD) assessment of nICP in an animal model of acute intracranial hypertension. In 28 rabbits, ICP was increased to 70-80 mmHg by infusion of Hartmann's solution into the lumbar subarachnoid space. Doppler flow velocity in the basilar artery was recorded. nICP was assessed through three different methods: Gosling's pulsatility index PI (gPI), Aaslid's method (AaICP), and a method based on diastolic blood flow velocity (FVdICP). We found a significant correlation between nICP and ICP when all infusion experiments were combined (FVdICP: r = 0.77, AaICP: r = 0.53, gPI: r = 0.54). The ability to distinguish between raised and 'normal' values of ICP was greatest for FVdICP (AUC 0.90 at ICP >40 mmHg). When infusion experiments were considered independently, FVdICP demonstrated again the strongest correlation between changes in ICP and changes in nICP (mean r = 0.85). TCD-based methods of nICP monitoring are better at detecting changes of ICP occurring in time, rather than absolute prediction of ICP as a number. Of the studied methods of nICP, the method based on FVd is best to discriminate between raised and 'normal' ICP and to monitor relative changes of ICP.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 39 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 13%
Student > Bachelor 5 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 10%
Other 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 8 21%
Unknown 11 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 44%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Engineering 2 5%
Chemistry 2 5%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 11 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 26 August 2015.
All research outputs
#13,751,237
of 23,313,051 outputs
Outputs from Neurocritical Care
#934
of 1,519 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,043
of 265,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurocritical Care
#12
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,313,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,519 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 265,432 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 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 50% of its contemporaries.