↓ Skip to main content

Effect of laser Doppler flowmetry and occlusion time on outcome variability and mortality in rat middle cerebral artery occlusion: inconclusive results

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Neuroscience, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 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
Effect of laser Doppler flowmetry and occlusion time on outcome variability and mortality in rat middle cerebral artery occlusion: inconclusive results
Published in
BMC Neuroscience, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12868-018-0425-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Edvin Ingberg, Hua Dock, Elvar Theodorsson, Annette Theodorsson, Jakob O. Ström

Abstract

Stroke is among the leading causes of death and disability. Although intense research efforts have provided promising treatment options in animals, most clinical trials in humans have failed and the therapeutic options are few. Several factors have been suggested to explain this translational difficulty, particularly concerning methodology and study design. Consistent infarcts and low mortality might be desirable in some, but not all, studies. Here, we aimed to investigate whether the use of laser Doppler flowmetry (LDF) and the occlusion time (60 vs. 45 min) affected outcome variability and mortality in a rat stroke model. Eighty ovariectomized female Wistar rats were subjected to ischemic stroke using intraluminal filament middle cerebral artery occlusion with or without LDF and with occlusion times of 45 or 60 min. Outcome was evaluated by triphenyl tetrazolium chloride staining of brain slices to measure infarct size and a modified sticky tape test. Neither LDF nor occlusion times of 45 versus 60 min significantly affected mortality, outcome variability or outcome severity. Due to the unexpectedly high mortality and variability the statistical power was very low and thus the results were inconclusive.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 9 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 33%
Student > Bachelor 2 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 11%
Lecturer 1 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 11%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 1 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 33%
Neuroscience 2 22%
Arts and Humanities 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%

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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#11,406,476
of 12,829,119 outputs
Outputs from BMC Neuroscience
#836
of 1,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#234,589
of 269,556 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Neuroscience
#3
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,829,119 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,016 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 269,556 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.