↓ Skip to main content

How to assess prognosis after cardiac arrest and therapeutic hypothermia

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
92 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
110 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
253 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
How to assess prognosis after cardiac arrest and therapeutic hypothermia
Published in
Critical Care, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/cc13696
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fabio Silvio Taccone, Tobias Cronberg, Hans Friberg, David Greer, Janneke Horn, Mauro Oddo, Sabino Scolletta, Jean-Louis Vincent

Abstract

The prognosis of patients who are admitted in a comatose state following successful resuscitation after cardiac arrest remains uncertain. Although the introduction of therapeutic hypothermia (TH) and improvements in post-resuscitation care have significantly increased the number of patients who are discharged home with minimal brain damage, short-term assessment of neurological outcome remains a challenge. The need for early and accurate prognostic predictors is crucial, especially since sedation and TH may alter the neurological examination and delay the recovery of motor response for several days. The development of additional tools, including electrophysiological examinations (electroencephalography and somatosensory evoked potentials), neuroimaging and chemical biomarkers, may help to evaluate the extent of brain injury in these patients. Given the extensive literature existing on this topic and the confounding effects of TH on the strength of these tools in outcome prognostication after cardiac arrest, the aim of this narrative review is to provide a practical approach to post-anoxic brain injury when TH is used. We also discuss when and how these tools could be combined with the neurological examination in a multimodal approach to improve outcome prediction in this population.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 92 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 253 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Italy 3 1%
Brazil 2 <1%
United States 2 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 241 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 42 17%
Other 37 15%
Student > Postgraduate 32 13%
Student > Master 25 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 23 9%
Other 60 24%
Unknown 34 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 169 67%
Neuroscience 13 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 2%
Engineering 5 2%
Other 9 4%
Unknown 45 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. 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 January 2023.
All research outputs
#769,531
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#561
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,063
of 321,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#1
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 321,184 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.