↓ Skip to main content

Republished: Spontaneous regression of intracranial aneurysm following remote ruptured aneurysm treatment with pipeline stent assisted coiling

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 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
Republished: Spontaneous regression of intracranial aneurysm following remote ruptured aneurysm treatment with pipeline stent assisted coiling
Published in
Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery, August 2015
DOI 10.1136/neurintsurg-2015-011931.rep
Pubmed ID
Authors

Asterios Tsimpas, William W Ashley, Anand V Germanwala

Abstract

Spontaneous aneurysm regression is a rare phenomenon. We present the interesting case of a 54-year-old woman who was admitted with a Hunt/Hess grade IV, Fisher grade III subarachnoid hemorrhage and multiple intracranial aneurysms. She was treated with coiling of the largest paraclinoid aneurysm and placement of a flow diverting pipeline embolization device that covered all internal carotid artery (ICA) aneurysms. A follow-up angiogram at 6 months showed remodeling of the ICA with complete obliteration of all treated aneurysms. A distant, untreated, right frontal M2 aneurysm regressed spontaneously, after the flow was diverted away from it with the stent. The literature is reviewed, and potential pathophysiological mechanisms leading to aneurysm regression are discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 10%
Unknown 9 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 2 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 10%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 10%
Student > Master 1 10%
Other 2 20%
Unknown 2 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 30%
Neuroscience 2 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 10%
Unknown 3 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 26 August 2015.
All research outputs
#3,811,861
of 13,419,874 outputs
Outputs from Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery
#591
of 1,334 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,417
of 239,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of NeuroInterventional Surgery
#4
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,419,874 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,334 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 239,928 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.