↓ Skip to main content

Ethics of neuroimaging after serious brain injury

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Ethics, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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.
Title
Ethics of neuroimaging after serious brain injury
Published in
BMC Medical Ethics, May 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6939-15-41
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles Weijer, Andrew Peterson, Fiona Webster, Mackenzie Graham, Damian Cruse, Davinia Fernández-Espejo, Teneille Gofton, Laura E Gonzalez-Lara, Andrea Lazosky, Lorina Naci, Loretta Norton, Kathy Speechley, Bryan Young, Adrian M Owen

Abstract

Patient outcome after serious brain injury is highly variable. Following a period of coma, some patients recover while others progress into a vegetative state (unresponsive wakefulness syndrome) or minimally conscious state. In both cases, assessment is difficult and misdiagnosis may be as high as 43%. Recent advances in neuroimaging suggest a solution. Both functional magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalography have been used to detect residual cognitive function in vegetative and minimally conscious patients. Neuroimaging may improve diagnosis and prognostication. These techniques are beginning to be applied to comatose patients soon after injury. Evidence of preserved cognitive function may predict recovery, and this information would help families and health providers. Complex ethical issues arise due to the vulnerability of patients and families, difficulties interpreting negative results, restriction of communication to "yes" or "no" answers, and cost. We seek to investigate ethical issues in the use of neuroimaging in behaviorally nonresponsive patients who have suffered serious brain injury. The objectives of this research are to: (1) create an approach to capacity assessment using neuroimaging; (2) develop an ethics of welfare framework to guide considerations of quality of life; (3) explore the impact of neuroimaging on families; and, (4) analyze the ethics of the use of neuroimaging in comatose patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 3%
United States 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 73 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 23%
Student > Master 17 22%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 4 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 34%
Psychology 16 21%
Neuroscience 6 8%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Philosophy 3 4%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 10 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 27 May 2014.
All research outputs
#1,400,723
of 15,087,934 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#158
of 663 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,130
of 190,205 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,087,934 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 663 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% 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 190,205 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them