↓ Skip to main content

Who does it first? The uptake of medical innovations in the performance of thrombolysis on ischemic stroke patients in Germany: a study based on hospital quality data

Overview of attention for article published in Implementation Science, January 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
38 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
Who does it first? The uptake of medical innovations in the performance of thrombolysis on ischemic stroke patients in Germany: a study based on hospital quality data
Published in
Implementation Science, January 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13012-014-0196-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nadine Scholten, Holger Pfaff, Helmar C Lehmann, Gereon R Fink, Ute Karbach

Abstract

BackgroundSince 2000, systemic thrombolysis has been the only approved curative and causal treatment for acute ischemic stroke. In 2009, the guidelines of the German Society for Neurology were updated and the therapeutic window for performing thrombolysis was extended. The implementation of new therapies is influenced by many factors. We analyzed the factors at the organizational level that influence the implementation of thrombolysis in stroke patients.MethodsThe data published by the majority of German hospitals in their structured quality reports was assessed. We calculated a regression model in order to measure the influence of hospital/department-level characteristics (e.g., teaching status, ownership, location, and number of hospital beds) on the implementation of thrombolysis in 2006 (this is the earliest point in time that can be analyzed on this data basis). In order to measure the effect of the guideline update in 2009 on the thrombolysis rate (TR) change between 2008 and 2010, we performed a Wilcoxon signed-rank test and utilized a regression model.ResultsIn 2006, 61.5% of a total of 286 neurology departments performed systemic thrombolysis to treat ischemic strokes. The influencing factors for the use of systemic thrombolysis in 2006 were the existence of a stroke unit (+) and a hospital size of between 500 and 1,000 beds (¿). A significant increase of the mean departmental TR (thrombolysis rate) from 6.7% to 9.2% between 2008 and 2010 was observed after the guideline update in 2009. For the departments performing thrombolysis in 2008 and 2010, our analysis could not show any additional influencing factors on a structural level that would explain the TR rise during the period 2008¿2010.ConclusionsBecause ischemic stroke patients benefit from systemic thrombolysis, it is necessary to examine possible barriers at the organizational level that hinder the implementation. Our data shows that, organizational factors have an influence on the implementation of thrombolysis. However, the recent guideline update resulted in a TR rise that occurred at all hospitals, regardless of the measured structural conditions, as our analysis could not identify any structural factors that might have influenced the TR after the guideline update.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 38 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 13%
Researcher 4 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 8%
Other 9 24%
Unknown 9 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 32%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 13%
Neuroscience 3 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 5%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 11 29%
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 21 January 2015.
All research outputs
#15,315,142
of 22,778,347 outputs
Outputs from Implementation Science
#1,556
of 1,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#209,322
of 353,085 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Implementation Science
#51
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,778,347 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 1,721 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.7. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% 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 353,085 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.