↓ Skip to main content

Variation in general supportive and preventive intensive care management of traumatic brain injury: a survey in 66 neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma…

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, April 2018
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 (91st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
51 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
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
Variation in general supportive and preventive intensive care management of traumatic brain injury: a survey in 66 neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study
Published in
Critical Care, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13054-018-2000-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jilske A. Huijben, Victor Volovici, Maryse C. Cnossen, Iain K. Haitsma, Nino Stocchetti, Andrew I. R. Maas, David K. Menon, Ari Ercole, Giuseppe Citerio, David Nelson, Suzanne Polinder, Ewout W. Steyerberg, Hester F. Lingsma, Mathieu van der Jagt

Abstract

General supportive and preventive measures in the intensive care management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) aim to prevent or limit secondary brain injury and optimize recovery. The aim of this survey was to assess and quantify variation in perceptions on intensive care unit (ICU) management of patients with TBI in European neurotrauma centers. We performed a survey as part of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. We analyzed 23 questions focused on: 1) circulatory and respiratory management; 2) fever control; 3) use of corticosteroids; 4) nutrition and glucose management; and 5) seizure prophylaxis and treatment. The survey was completed predominantly by intensivists (n = 33, 50%) and neurosurgeons (n = 23, 35%) from 66 centers (97% response rate). The most common cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) target was > 60 mmHg (n = 39, 60%) and/or an individualized target (n = 25, 38%). To support CPP, crystalloid fluid loading (n = 60, 91%) was generally preferred over albumin (n = 15, 23%), and vasopressors (n = 63, 96%) over inotropes (n = 29, 44%). The most commonly reported target of partial pressure of carbon dioxide in arterial blood (PaCO2) was 36-40 mmHg (4.8-5.3 kPa) in case of controlled intracranial pressure (ICP) < 20 mmHg (n = 45, 69%) and PaCO2 target of 30-35 mmHg (4-4.7 kPa) in case of raised ICP (n = 40, 62%). Almost all respondents indicated to generally treat fever (n = 65, 98%) with paracetamol (n = 61, 92%) and/or external cooling (n = 49, 74%). Conventional glucose management (n = 43, 66%) was preferred over tight glycemic control (n = 18, 28%). More than half of the respondents indicated to aim for full caloric replacement within 7 days (n = 43, 66%) using enteral nutrition (n = 60, 92%). Indications for and duration of seizure prophylaxis varied, and levetiracetam was mostly reported as the agent of choice for both seizure prophylaxis (n = 32, 49%) and treatment (n = 40, 61%). Practice preferences vary substantially regarding general supportive and preventive measures in TBI patients at ICUs of European neurotrauma centers. These results provide an opportunity for future comparative effectiveness research, since a more evidence-based uniformity in good practices in general ICU management could have a major impact on TBI outcome.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 76 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 16%
Researcher 11 14%
Student > Master 8 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 11%
Other 5 7%
Other 22 29%
Unknown 10 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 41%
Neuroscience 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Computer Science 3 4%
Engineering 2 3%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 18 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 29. 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 02 October 2018.
All research outputs
#736,240
of 15,922,732 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#670
of 5,031 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#23,698
of 282,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,922,732 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 5,031 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 15.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 282,076 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 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 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