↓ Skip to main content

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for acute ischaemic stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 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 (83rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 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
Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for acute ischaemic stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004954.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael H Bennett, Stephanie Weibel, Jason Wasiak, Alexander Schnabel, Christopher French, Peter Kranke

Abstract

Decompression illness (DCI) is due to bubble formation in the blood or tissues following the breathing of compressed gas. Clinically, DCI may range from a trivial illness to loss of consciousness, death or paralysis. Recompression is the universally accepted standard for the treatment of DCI. When recompression is delayed, a number of strategies have been suggested in order to improve the outcome. To examine the effectiveness and safety of both recompression and adjunctive therapies in the treatment of DCI. We searched CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2005, Issue 2); MEDLINE (1966 to August 2005); CINAHL (1982 to August 2005); EMBASE (1980 to August 2005); the Database of Randomised Controlled Trials in Hyperbaric Medicine (August 2005), and hand-searched journals and texts. We included randomized controlled trials that compared the effect of any recompression schedule or adjunctive therapy with a standard recompression schedule. We applied no language restrictions. Three authors extracted the data independently. We assessed each trial for internal validity and resolved differences by discussion. Data was entered into RevMan 4.2. Two randomized controlled trials satisfied the inclusion criteria. Pooling of data was not possible. In one study there was no evidence of improved effectiveness with the addition of a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (tenoxicam) to routine recompression therapy (at six weeks: relative risk (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90 to 1.20, P = 0.58) but there was a reduction in the number of compressions required when tenoxicam was added (P = 0.01, 95% CI 0 to 1). In the other study, the odds of multiple recompressions was lower with a helium and oxygen (heliox) table compared to an oxygen treatment table (RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.00, P = 0.05). Recompression therapy is standard for the treatment of DCI, but there is no randomized controlled trial evidence. Both the addition of an NSAID or the use of heliox may reduce the number of recompressions required, but neither improves the odds of recovery. The application of either of these strategies may be justified. The modest number of patients studied demands a cautious interpretation. Benefits may be largely economic and an economic analysis should be undertaken. There is a case for large randomized trials of high methodological rigour in order to define any benefit from the use of different breathing gases and pressure profiles during recompression therapy.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 96 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 19%
Researcher 17 17%
Student > Bachelor 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 7%
Other 19 19%
Unknown 13 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 47 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Neuroscience 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 16 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 06 January 2020.
All research outputs
#2,216,019
of 14,242,710 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,964
of 10,910 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,968
of 232,848 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#128
of 255 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,242,710 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,910 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 232,848 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 255 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.