↓ Skip to main content

Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment, Part 2: Treatment “Roles of Capillary Index Score, Revascularization and Time”

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 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
Acute Ischemic Stroke Treatment, Part 2: Treatment “Roles of Capillary Index Score, Revascularization and Time”
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, June 2015
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2015.00117
Pubmed ID
Authors

Firas Al-Ali, John J. Elias, Danielle E. Filipkowski

Abstract

Due to recent results from clinical intra-arterial treatment for acute ischemic stroke (IAT-AIS) trials such as the interventional management of stroke III, IAT-AIS and the merit of revascularization have been contested. Even though intra-arterial treatment (IAT) has been shown to improve revascularization rates, a corresponding increase in good outcomes has only recently been noted. Even though a significant percentage of patients achieve good revascularization in a timely manner, results do not translate into good clinical outcomes (GCOs). Based on a review of the literature, the authors suspect limited GCOs following timely and successful revascularization are due to poor patient selection that led to futile and possibly even harmful revascularization. The capillary index score (CIS) is a simple angiography-based scale that can potentially be used to improve patient selection to prevent revascularization being performed on patients who are unlikely to benefit from treatment. The CIS characterizes presence of capillary blush related to collateral flow as a marker of residual viable tissue, with absence of blush indicating the tissue is no longer viable due to ischemia. By only selecting patients with a favorable CIS for IAT, the rate of GCOs should consistently approach 80-90%. Current methods of patient selection are primarily dependent on time from ischemia. Time from cerebral ischemia to irreversible tissue damage seems to vary from patient to patient; so focusing on viable tissue based on the CIS rather than relying on an artificial time window seems to be a more appropriate approach to patient selection.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 3%
Unknown 28 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 24%
Student > Bachelor 4 14%
Student > Postgraduate 4 14%
Other 3 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 10%
Other 6 21%
Unknown 2 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 55%
Neuroscience 3 10%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 6 21%
Attention Score in Context

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 15 May 2015.
All research outputs
#18,409,030
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#7,722
of 11,670 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,013
of 267,541 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#63
of 80 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,670 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% 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 267,541 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 80 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.