↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for acute stroke management in Africa: a systematic review of the evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
7 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 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
Interventions for acute stroke management in Africa: a systematic review of the evidence
Published in
Systematic Reviews, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13643-017-0594-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leonard Baatiema, Carina K. Y. Chan, Adem Sav, Shawn Somerset

Abstract

The past decades have witnessed a rapid evolution of research on evidence-based acute stroke care interventions worldwide. Nonetheless, the evidence-to-practice gap in acute stroke care remains variable with slow and inconsistent uptake in low-middle income countries (LMICs). This review aims to identify and compare evidence-based acute stroke management interventions with alternative care on overall patient mortality and morbidity outcomes, functional independence, and length of hospital stay across Africa. This review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline. An electronic search was conducted in six databases comprising MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science, Academic Search Complete and Cochrane Library for experimental and non-experimental studies. Eligible studies were abstracted into evidence tables and their methodological quality appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklist. Data were analysed and presented narratively with reference to observed differences in patient outcomes, reporting p values and confidence intervals for any possible relationship. Initially, 1896 articles were identified and 37 fully screened. Four non-experimental studies (three cohort and one case series studies) were included in the final review. One study focused on the clinical efficacy of a stroke unit whilst the remaining three reported on thrombolytic therapy. The results demonstrated a reduction in patient deaths attributed to stroke unit care and thrombolytic therapy. Thrombolytic therapy was also associated with reductions in symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage (SICH). However, the limited eligible studies and methodological limitations compromised definitive conclusions on the extent of and level of efficacy of evidence-based acute stroke care interventions across Africa. Evidence from this review confirms the widespread assertion of low applicability and uptake of evidence-based acute stroke care in LMICs. Despite the limited eligible studies, the overall positive patient outcomes following such interventions demonstrate the applicability and value of evidence-based acute stroke care interventions in Africa. Health policy attention is thus required to ensure widespread applicability of such interventions for improved patients' outcomes. The review findings also emphasises the need for further research to unravel the reasons for low uptake. PROSPERO CRD42016051566.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 11 17%
Researcher 10 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Lecturer 5 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 17 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Neuroscience 3 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 5%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 19 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 December 2017.
All research outputs
#4,906,567
of 16,617,431 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#912
of 1,496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#110,484
of 325,980 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#85
of 174 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,617,431 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,496 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 325,980 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 174 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.