↓ Skip to main content

A new look at cerebrospinal fluid movement

Overview of attention for article published in Fluids and Barriers of the CNS, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
232 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
A new look at cerebrospinal fluid movement
Published in
Fluids and Barriers of the CNS, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/2045-8118-11-16
Pubmed ID
Authors

Darko Orešković, Marijan Klarica

Abstract

Brinker et al. extensively reviewed recent findings about CSF circulation in a recent article: "A new look at cerebrospinal circulation", but did not analyze some important available data in sufficient detail. For example, our findings as well as some clinical data and experimental results obtained from different animal species, do not support unidirectional CSF circulation but strongly suggest that there are cardiac cycle-dependent systolic-diastolic to-and-fro cranio-spinal CSF movements. These are based on: a) physiological oscillations of arterial and venous blood during cranio-spinal blood circulation; b) respiratory activity, and c) body activity and posture. That kind of complex CSF movement could explain the observed distribution of many different substances in all directions along the CSF system and within central nervous system tissue. It seems that efflux transport systems at capillary endothelium may be more important for brain homeostasis than the removal of metabolites by CSF flow. Thus, when discussing the CSF dynamics we suggest that a more appropriate term would be CSF movement rather than CSF circulation.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Croatia 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 230 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 11%
Student > Master 25 11%
Student > Bachelor 25 11%
Researcher 24 10%
Student > Postgraduate 15 6%
Other 47 20%
Unknown 70 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 19%
Neuroscience 27 12%
Engineering 21 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 4%
Other 40 17%
Unknown 76 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 03 May 2021.
All research outputs
#6,275,904
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Fluids and Barriers of the CNS
#138
of 496 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,829
of 240,690 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Fluids and Barriers of the CNS
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 496 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% 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 240,690 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.