↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
27 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user
guideline
1 clinical guideline source

Readers on

mendeley
151 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
Safety and Efficacy of a 3-Dimensional Stent Retriever With Aspiration-Based Thrombectomy vs Aspiration-Based Thrombectomy Alone in Acute Ischemic Stroke Intervention: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Published in
JAMA Neurology, March 2018
DOI 10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.3967
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The treatment effects of individual mechanical thrombectomy devices in large-vessel acute ischemic stroke (AIS) remain unclear. To determine whether the novel 3-dimensional (3-D) stent retriever used in conjunction with an aspiration-based mechanical thrombectomy device (Penumbra System; Penumbra) is noninferior to aspiration-based thrombectomy alone in AIS. This randomized, noninferiority clinical trial enrolled patients at 25 North American centers from May 19, 2012, through November 19, 2015, with follow-up for 90 days. Adjudicaters of the primary end points were masked to treatment allocation. Patients with large-vessel intracranial occlusion AIS presenting with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of at least 8 within 8 hours of onset underwent 1:1 randomization to 3-D stent retriever with aspiration or aspiration alone. The primary analyses were conducted in the intention-to-treat population. Mechanical thrombectomy using intracranial aspiration with or without the 3-D stent retriever. The primary effectiveness end point was the rate of a modified Thrombolysis in Cerebral Infarction (mTICI) grade of 2 to 3 with a 15% noninferiority margin. Device- and procedure-related serious adverse events at 24 hours were the primary safety end points. Of 8082 patients screened, 198 patients were enrolled (111 women [56.1%] and 87 men [43.9%]; mean [SD] age, 66.9 [13.0] years) and randomized, including 98 in the 3-D stent retriever with aspiration group and 100 in the aspiration alone group; an additional 238 patients were eligible but not enrolled. The median baseline NIHSS score was 18.0 (interquartile range, 14.0-23.0). Eighty-two of 94 patients in the 3-D stent retriever and aspiration group (87.2%) had an mTICI grade of 2 to 3 compared with 79 of 96 in the aspiration alone group (82.3%; difference, 4.9%; 90% CI, -3.6% to 13.5%). None of the other measures were significantly different between the 2 groups. Device-related serious adverse events were reported by 4 of 98 patients in the 3-D stent retriever with aspiration group (4.1%) vs 5 of 100 patients in the aspiration only group (5.0%); procedure-related serious adverse events, 10 of 98 (10.2%) vs 14 of 100 (14.0%). A 90-day modified Rankin Scale score of 0 to 2 was reported by 39 of 86 patients in the 3-D stent retriever with aspiration group (45.3%) vs 44 of 96 patients in the aspiration only group (45.8%). The present study provides class 1 evidence for the noninferiority of the 3-D stent retriever with aspiration vs aspiration alone in AIS. Future trials should evaluate whether these results can be generalized to other stent retrievers. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01584609.

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 profiles of 27 X users 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 151 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 %
Unknown 151 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 15%
Other 13 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 9%
Student > Master 11 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 7%
Other 26 17%
Unknown 56 37%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 29%
Neuroscience 12 8%
Engineering 8 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 1%
Other 11 7%
Unknown 69 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 33. 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 11 February 2021.
All research outputs
#1,547,146
of 34,457,357 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Neurology
#1,535
of 3,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,832
of 373,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Neurology
#39
of 67 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,457,357 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,697 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 77.3. 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 373,761 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 67 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.