↓ Skip to main content

Update on Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension

Overview of attention for article published in Neurologic clinics, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
7 Wikipedia pages
reddit
1 Redditor
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
205 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
Update on Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension
Published in
Neurologic clinics, February 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.ncl.2016.08.004
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH) is a disorder of elevated intracranial pressure of unknown cause occurring predominantly in young women of childbearing age. The typical patient symptom profile is the presence of daily headache, pulse synchronous tinnitus, transient visual obscurations, and papilledema with its associated visual loss. Although surgical procedures are performed for those who fail medical therapy, their relative efficacy remains unclear. The main morbidity of IIH is from visual loss. This visual loss is present in most patients and can usually be reversed if recognized early in the patients' course and treated.

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 205 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 %
New Zealand 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 202 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 21 10%
Student > Master 20 10%
Student > Bachelor 16 8%
Researcher 15 7%
Other 14 7%
Other 46 22%
Unknown 73 36%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 85 41%
Neuroscience 18 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 1%
Engineering 3 1%
Other 15 7%
Unknown 76 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 01 March 2023.
All research outputs
#6,794,430
of 33,087,078 outputs
Outputs from Neurologic clinics
#229
of 867 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,967
of 459,884 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurologic clinics
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,087,078 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 867 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 459,884 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.