You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Cerebrospinal fluid drainage for thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm surgery
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd003635.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shaukat Nawaz Khan, Gerard Stansby |
| Abstract |
During aortic aneurysm surgery, cross-clamping can lead to inadequate blood supply to the spinal cord resulting in neurological deficit. Cerebrospinal fluid drainage (CSFD) may increase the perfusion pressure to the spinal cord and hence reduce the risk of ischaemic spinal cord injury. To determine the effect of CSFD during thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) surgery on the risk of developing spinal cord injury. For this update the Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched May 31 2012) and CENTRAL (2012, Issue 5) for publications describing randomised controlled trials of cerebrospinal fluid drainage for thoracic and thoracoabdominal aortic aneurysm surgery. Reference lists of relevant articles were checked. Randomised trials involving CSFD during thoracic and TAAA surgery. Both authors assessed the quality of trials independently. SNK extracted data and GS verified the data. Three trials with a total of 287 participants operated on for Type I or II TAAA were included.In the first trial of 98 participants, neurological deficits in the lower extremities occurred in 14 (30%) of CSFD group and 17 (33%) controls. The deficit was observed within 24 hours of the operation in 21 (68%), and from three to 22 days in 10 (32%) participants. CSFD did not have a significant benefit in preventing ischaemic injury to the spinal cord.The second trial of 33 participants used a combination of CSFD and intrathecal papaverine. It showed a statistically significant reduction in the rate of postoperative neurological deficit (P = 0.039), compared to controls. Analysis was undertaken after only one third of the estimated sample size had entered the trial.In the third trial TAAA repair was performed on 145 participants. CSFD was initiated during the operation and continued for 48 hours after surgery. Paraplegia or paraparesis occurred in 9 of 74 participants (12.2%) in the control group versus 2 of 82 participants (2.7%) receiving CSFD (P = 0.03). Overall, CSFD resulted in an 80% reduction in the relative risk of postoperative deficits. Meta-analysis showed an odds ratio (OR) of 0.48 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.92). For CSFD-only trials, OR was 0.57 (95% CI 0.28 to 1.17) and for intention-to-treat analysis in CSFD-only studies, the OR remained unchanged. There are limited data supporting the role of CSFD in thoracic and thoracoabdominal aneurysm surgery for prevention of neurological injury. Further clinical and experimental studies are indicated. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 143 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| India | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 139 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 13% |
| Other | 14 | 10% |
| Researcher | 14 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 13 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 13 | 9% |
| Other | 34 | 24% |
| Unknown | 36 | 25% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 72 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 7% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 2% |
| Psychology | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 6% |
| Unknown | 44 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 15 December 2016.
All research outputs
#8,571,053
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#9,070
of 11,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,872
of 193,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#174
of 241 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 38.9. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% 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 193,432 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 241 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.