↓ Skip to main content

Therapeutic Hypothermia in Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injury

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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
Therapeutic Hypothermia in Stroke and Traumatic Brain Injury
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2011.00080
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alireza Faridar, Eric M. Bershad, Tenbit Emiru, Paul A. Iaizzo, Jose I. Suarez, Afshin A. Divani

Abstract

Therapeutic hypothermia (TH) is considered to improve survival with favorable neurological outcome in the case of global cerebral ischemia after cardiac arrest and perinatal asphyxia. The efficacy of hypothermia in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and traumatic brain injury (TBI), however, is not well studied. Induction of TH typically requires a multimodal approach, including the use of both pharmacological agents and physical techniques. To date, clinical outcomes for patients with either AIS or TBI who received TH have yielded conflicting results; thus, no adequate therapeutic consensus has been reached. Nevertheless, it seems that by determining optimal TH parameters and also appropriate applications, cooling therapy still has the potential to become a valuable neuroprotective intervention. Among the various methods for hypothermia induction, intravascular cooling (IVC) may have the most promise in the awake patient in terms of clinical outcomes. Currently, the IVC method has the capability of more rapid target temperature attainment and more precise control of temperature. However, this technique requires expertise in endovascular surgery that can preclude its application in the field and/or in most emergency settings. It is very likely that combining neuroprotective strategies will yield better outcomes than utilizing a single approach.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

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 %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Unknown 75 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Bachelor 12 16%
Other 10 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 9%
Other 16 21%
Unknown 12 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 43%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 12%
Neuroscience 7 9%
Engineering 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 15 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 22 December 2020.
All research outputs
#14,732,278
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#6,032
of 11,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,605
of 180,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#25
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,573 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 180,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.