↓ Skip to main content

The status of diagnosis and treatment to intracranial hypotension, including SIH

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Headache and Pain, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
79 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 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
The status of diagnosis and treatment to intracranial hypotension, including SIH
Published in
The Journal of Headache and Pain, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s10194-016-0708-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jin-ping Lin, Shu-dong Zhang, Fei-fang He, Min-jun Liu, Xiao-xu Ma

Abstract

Intracranial hypotension, especially spontaneous intracranial hypotension (SIH), is a well-recognized entity associated with cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks, and has being recognized better in resent years, while still woefully inadequate. An increasing number of factors including iatrogenic factors are realized to involve in development and progression of intracranial hypotension. The diagnosis remains difficult due to the various clinical manifestations, some of which are nonspecific and easily to be neglected. Multiple imaging tests are optional in CSF leakage identification while clinicians are still confronted with difficulties when making selection resulting from superiorities and disadvantages of different imaging tests. Treatments for intracranial hypotension are multifarious but evidence is anecdotal. Values of autologous epidural blood patching (EBP), the mainstay of first-line interventional treatment currently, is getting more and more regards while there are no systematic review of its efficacy and risks. Hereby, the purpose of this review was to reveal the present strategy of intracranial hypotension diagnosis and treatment by reviewing literatures, coupled with our experience in clinical work.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 19 20%
Student > Postgraduate 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Researcher 7 7%
Other 18 19%
Unknown 23 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 7 7%
Unknown 24 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 04 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,147,352
of 25,306,238 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#280
of 1,521 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,053
of 434,358 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Headache and Pain
#6
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,306,238 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,521 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% 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 434,358 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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.