↓ Skip to main content

Use of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring Frequently Refutes Diagnosis of Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension

Overview of attention for article published in World Neurosurgery, April 2017
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
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
55 Mendeley
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.
Article details
Title
Use of Intracranial Pressure Monitoring Frequently Refutes Diagnosis of Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension
Published in
World Neurosurgery, April 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.wneu.2017.04.080
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The diagnosis and management of patients with idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) frequently relies on lumbar puncture to ascertain intracranial pressures. However, pressures derived this way may be spurious due to patient body habitus and behavior. We recently incorporated direct continuous intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring into the work-up for IIH and review our experience and outcomes. Through billing records, we identified all patients during a 3-year period who had a diagnosis of idiopathic intracranial hypertension and who underwent ICP monitoring prior to shunt placement or revision. Patient demographics and clinical data were reviewed. Thirty patients underwent intracranial ICP monitoring with an intraparenchymal wire; 17 of those had undergone lumbar puncture within the previous 6 months. from lumbar punctures showed an elevated opening pressure in all 17 patients, whereas only 2 patients (12%) were found to have consistently elevated ICP with direct ICP monitoring. Of 15 patients being evaluated for shunting, 4 (27%) were found to have elevated ICP. Of the 15 patients with existing shunts, 2 patients (13%) were found to have malfunctioning shunts after pressure monitoring, and 3 patients (20%) had shunts that were found to be unnecessary and were removed. No patient experienced any complication from invasive monitoring. Intracranial monitoring is the gold standard for determining ICP and can be safely and effectively applied to the work-up and treatment of IIH patients to reduce the occurrence of misdiagnosis and unnecessary surgery.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 54 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Other 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Student > Master 3 5%
Other 9 16%
Unknown 22 40%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 29%
Neuroscience 6 11%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 25 45%
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 02 October 2020.
All research outputs
#21,526,840
of 32,215,386 outputs
Outputs from World Neurosurgery
#3,030
of 7,852 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,572
of 343,379 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Neurosurgery
#78
of 166 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,215,386 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,852 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 343,379 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 166 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.