↓ Skip to main content

Spontaneous intracranial hypotension: diagnosis to management

Overview of attention for article published in Acta Neurologica Belgica, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 Mendeley
Title
Spontaneous intracranial hypotension: diagnosis to management
Published in
Acta Neurologica Belgica, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s13760-015-0577-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kaustubh Limaye, Rohan Samant, Ricky W. Lee

Abstract

Spontaneous Intracranial Hypotension typically occurs from spontaneous CSF leak. CSF volume depletion rather than decrease in CSF pressure is thought to be the main causative feature for intracranial hypotension. More and more cases of intracranial hypotension are getting diagnosed with the advances in the imaging. The advances in the imaging have also led to the better understanding of the dynamic changes that occur with intracranial hypotension. The old theories of CSF overproduction or CSF underproduction have not been substantially associated with intracranial hypotension. It has also led to the fore different atypical clinical features and presentations. Although, it has been known for a long time, the diagnosis is still challenging and dilemma persists over one diagnostic modality over other and the subsequent management. Spontaneous CSF leaks occur at the spinal level and the skull base and other locations are rare. The anatomy of spontaneous intracranial hypotension is a very complex process with significant overlap in connective tissue disorders, previous dural weakness or meningeal diverticula. To localize the location of the CSF leak-CT myelography is the modality of choice. CSF cysternography may provide additional confirmation in uncertain cases and also MRI spine imaging may be of significant help in some cases. Spontaneous intracranial hypotension continues to be a diagnostic dilemma and our effort was to consolidate available information on the clinical features, diagnostics, and management for a practicing neurologist for a "15-20 min quick update of the topic".

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 24%
Researcher 7 18%
Student > Postgraduate 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Student > Master 3 8%
Other 6 16%
Unknown 6 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 50%
Psychology 3 8%
Engineering 2 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 11 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 December 2015.
All research outputs
#21,699,788
of 24,217,893 outputs
Outputs from Acta Neurologica Belgica
#613
of 809 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#338,048
of 397,374 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Acta Neurologica Belgica
#9
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,217,893 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 809 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 397,374 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.