↓ Skip to main content

Optimizing the Definitions of Stroke, Transient Ischemic Attack, and Infarction for Research and Application in Clinical Practice

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
233 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
Optimizing the Definitions of Stroke, Transient Ischemic Attack, and Infarction for Research and Application in Clinical Practice
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, October 2017
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00537
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne L. Abbott, Mauro Silvestrini, Raffi Topakian, Jonathan Golledge, Alejandro M. Brunser, Gert J. de Borst, Robert E. Harbaugh, Fergus N. Doubal, Tatjana Rundek, Ankur Thapar, Alun H. Davies, Anthony Kam, Joanna M. Wardlaw

Abstract

Until now, stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) have been clinically based terms which describe the presence and duration of characteristic neurological deficits attributable to intrinsic disorders of particular arteries supplying the brain, retina, or (sometimes) the spinal cord. Further, infarction has been pathologically defined as death of neural tissue due to reduced blood supply. Recently, it has been proposed we shift to definitions of stroke and TIA determined by neuroimaging results alone and that neuroimaging findings be equated with infarction. We examined the scientific validity and clinical implications of these proposals using the existing published literature and our own experience in research and clinical practice. We found that the proposals to change to imaging-dominant definitions, as published, are ambiguous and inconsistent. Therefore, they cannot provide the standardization required in research or its application in clinical practice. Further, we found that the proposals are scientifically incorrect because neuroimaging findings do not always correlate with the clinical status or the presence of infarction. In addition, we found that attempts to use the proposals are disrupting research, are otherwise clinically unhelpful and do not solve the problems they were proposed to solve. We advise that the proposals must not be accepted. In particular, we explain why the clinical focus of the definitions of stroke and TIA should be retained with continued sub-classification of these syndromes depending neuroimaging results (with or without other information) and that infarction should remain a pathological term. We outline ways the established clinically based definitions of stroke and TIA, and use of them, may be improved to encourage better patient outcomes in the modern era.

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 233 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 233 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 41 18%
Student > Master 21 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 7%
Student > Postgraduate 13 6%
Other 13 6%
Other 35 15%
Unknown 94 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 73 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 7%
Neuroscience 11 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Other 20 9%
Unknown 103 44%
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 18 October 2017.
All research outputs
#20,450,513
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#8,927
of 11,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#285,182
of 327,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#146
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 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 11,904 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 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 327,016 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 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.