↓ Skip to main content

Seizures and hypothermia: Importance of electroencephalographic monitoring and considerations for treatment.

Overview of attention for article published in Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
86 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
Seizures and hypothermia: Importance of electroencephalographic monitoring and considerations for treatment.
Published in
Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine, January 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.siny.2015.01.001
Pubmed ID
Authors

Boylan GB, Kharoshankaya L, Wusthoff CJ

Abstract

Hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy is a common cause of seizures in neonates. Despite the introduction of therapeutic hypothermia, seizure rates are similar to those reported in the pre-therapeutic hypothermia era. However, the seizure profile has been altered resulting in a lower overall seizure burden, shorter individual seizure durations, and seizures that are harder to detect. Electroencephalographic (EEG) monitoring is the gold standard for detecting all seizures in neonates and this is even more critical in neonates who are cooled, as they are often sedated, making seizures more difficult to detect. Several studies have shown that the majority of seizures in neonates undergoing therapeutic hypothermia remain subclinical, thus requiring EEG monitoring for diagnosis. Amplitude-integrated EEG monitoring is useful but shorter duration seizures are more likely to be missed. Evidence is emerging about the pharmacokinetic profile of routinely used antiepileptic drugs during therapeutic hypothermia and some modifications have been suggested, particularly for lidocaine use.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 84 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 20%
Researcher 10 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Other 8 9%
Other 25 29%
Unknown 9 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 58%
Neuroscience 9 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Psychology 3 3%
Engineering 3 3%
Other 4 5%
Unknown 12 14%

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 20 December 2015.
All research outputs
#3,291,782
of 6,797,067 outputs
Outputs from Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine
#89
of 178 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#107,235
of 207,983 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Seminars in Fetal and Neonatal Medicine
#6
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,797,067 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 178 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.2. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 207,983 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.