↓ Skip to main content

Post-Stroke Sleep-Disordered Breathing—Pathophysiology and Therapy Options

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Surgery, February 2018
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
65 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
Post-Stroke Sleep-Disordered Breathing—Pathophysiology and Therapy Options
Published in
Frontiers in Surgery, February 2018
DOI 10.3389/fsurg.2018.00009
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Stevens, Rodrigo Tomazini Martins, Sutapa Mukherjee, Andrew Vakulin

Abstract

Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB), encompassing both obstructive and central sleep apnea, is prevalent in at least 50% of stroke patients. Small studies have shown vast improvements in post-stroke functional recovery outcomes after the treatment of SDB by continuous positive airway pressure. However, compliance to this therapy is very poor in this complex patient group. There are alternative therapy options for SDB that may be more amenable for use in at least some post-stroke patients, including mandibular advancement, supine avoidance, and oxygen therapy. There are few studies, however, that demonstrate efficacy and compliance with these alternative therapies currently. Furthermore, novel SDB-phenotyping approaches may help to provide important clinical information to direct therapy selection in individual patients. Prior to realizing individualized therapy, we need a better understanding of the pathophysiology of SDB in post-stroke patients, including the role of inherent phenotypic traits, as well as the contribution of stroke size and location. This review summarizes the available literature on SDB pathophysiology and treatment in post-stroke patients, identifies gaps in the literature, and sets out areas for further research.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 8 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 11%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 9%
Researcher 5 8%
Other 8 12%
Unknown 24 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 28%
Neuroscience 7 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Linguistics 1 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 29 45%
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 19 February 2019.
All research outputs
#15,493,741
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Surgery
#708
of 2,996 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,008
of 330,211 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Surgery
#18
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,996 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 330,211 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.