| Title |
Differentiate the Source and Site of Intracranial Pressure Measurements Using More Precise Nomenclature
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neurocritical Care, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12028-018-0613-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
DaiWai M. Olson, Stefany Ortega Peréz, Jonathan Ramsay, Chethan P. Venkatasubba Rao, Jose I. Suarez, Molly McNett, Venkatesh Aiyagari |
| Abstract |
Intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring is fundamental for neurocritical care patient management. For many years, ventricular and parenchymal devices have been available for this aim. The purpose of this paper is to review the published literature comparing ICP recordings via an intraventricular catheter or an intraparenchymal (brain tissue) catheter. Literature search of Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and Scopus was performed in which manuscripts discussed both ICP monitoring via an intraventricular catheter and ICP monitoring through intraparenchymal (brain tissue) catheter. Keywords and MeSH terms used include critical care, intracranial pressure, ICP, monitoring, epidural catheter, intracranial hypertension, ventriculostomy, ventricular drain, external ventricular drain, and physiologic monitoring. Eleven articles met inclusion criteria. The published literature shows differences in simultaneously recorded ICP between the intraventricular and intraparenchymal sites. We propose two new terms that more accurately identify the anatomical site of recording for the referenced ICP: intracranial pressure ventricular (ICP-v) and intracranial pressure brain tissue (ICP-bt). Further delineation of the conventional term "ICP" into these two new terms will clarify the difference between ICP-v and ICP-bt and their respective measurement locations. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 5 | 31% |
| United States | 4 | 25% |
| Malaysia | 1 | 6% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 5 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 38% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
| Scientists | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 37 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 37 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 11% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 22% |
| Unknown | 13 | 35% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 13 | 35% |
| Neuroscience | 3 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 15 | 41% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 29 October 2021.
All research outputs
#2,989,875
of 23,103,903 outputs
Outputs from Neurocritical Care
#261
of 1,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#63,678
of 340,828 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurocritical Care
#5
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,103,903 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,508 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 340,828 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.