| Title |
Guidelines for the Evaluation and Management of Status Epilepticus
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neurocritical Care, April 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12028-012-9695-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gretchen M. Brophy, Rodney Bell, Jan Claassen, Brian Alldredge, Thomas P. Bleck, Tracy Glauser, Suzette M. LaRoche, James J. Riviello, Lori Shutter, Michael R. Sperling, David M. Treiman, Paul M. Vespa, Neurocritical Care Society Status Epilepticus Guideline Writing Committee |
| Abstract |
Status epilepticus (SE) treatment strategies vary substantially from one institution to another due to the lack of data to support one treatment over another. To provide guidance for the acute treatment of SE in critically ill patients, the Neurocritical Care Society organized a writing committee to evaluate the literature and develop an evidence-based and expert consensus practice guideline. Literature searches were conducted using PubMed and studies meeting the criteria established by the writing committee were evaluated. Recommendations were developed based on the literature using standardized assessment methods from the American Heart Association and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation systems, as well as expert opinion when sufficient data were lacking. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 13 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 States | 5 | 38% |
| Chile | 2 | 15% |
| Bolivia, Plurinational State of | 1 | 8% |
| Brazil | 1 | 8% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 15% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 77% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 23% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,554 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 16 | 1% |
| Spain | 3 | <1% |
| Brazil | 3 | <1% |
| Colombia | 2 | <1% |
| Chile | 2 | <1% |
| South Africa | 2 | <1% |
| Italy | 2 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 4 | <1% |
| Unknown | 1518 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 233 | 15% |
| Researcher | 194 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 172 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 148 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 125 | 8% |
| Other | 365 | 23% |
| Unknown | 317 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 827 | 53% |
| Neuroscience | 106 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 90 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 38 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 36 | 2% |
| Other | 88 | 6% |
| Unknown | 369 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 60. 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 08 August 2023.
All research outputs
#724,953
of 25,760,414 outputs
Outputs from Neurocritical Care
#31
of 1,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,373
of 176,098 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurocritical Care
#1
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,760,414 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,761 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 176,098 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.