↓ Skip to main content

Cautionary Case

Overview of attention for article published in American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
27 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
Cautionary Case
Published in
American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, February 2015
DOI 10.1097/phm.0000000000000189
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Presurgical selection criteria for decompressive craniectomy (DC) for treatment of severe traumatic brain injury remain controversial. Proposed criteria to improve outcomes include high admission Glasgow Coma Scale scores (≥7) and exclusion of patients having brainstem involvement. Neurosurgeons may be unaware of long-term functional outcomes in their DC patients. Therefore, to underscore an exceptional outcome that may have been facilitated by DC, while highlighting need for caution in development of potentially overly restrictive presurgical selection criteria, this case report of a 21-yr-old premed college student admitted with severe traumatic brain injury, Glasgow Coma Scale score of 3, left fixed dilated pupil, and brainstem signs, who had emergency DC, is presented. Nine years after the trauma, she was employed full time as a physician, and only residual symptom, an occasional headache, remained. Thus, caution is necessary in the development of DC presurgical selection guidelines, as this case had excellent long-term functional outcome that may have been facilitated by DC despite initial low Glasgow Coma Scale scores and signs of brainstem involvement. Also, this case highlights one more reason for multispecialty physician advocacy, collaboration, and comparative effectiveness research.

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 27 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 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 22%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Professor 2 7%
Other 3 11%
Unknown 9 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Neuroscience 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 February 2015.
All research outputs
#17,283,763
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
#1,617
of 2,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#222,287
of 361,167 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American Journal of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
#14
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,463 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 361,167 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.