↓ Skip to main content

The use of standardized management protocols for critically ill patients with non-traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage: a protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, April 2018
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)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 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 use of standardized management protocols for critically ill patients with non-traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage: a protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Systematic Reviews, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0716-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shaurya Taran, Vatsal Trivedi, Jeffrey M. Singh, Shane W. English, Victoria A. McCredie

Abstract

Caring for patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) presents unique challenges, due in part to the severity of the underlying insult, competing systemic injuries, and unpredictable clinical course. Even when management occurs in dedicated critical care settings, treatment uncertainty often persists, and morbidity and mortality from the condition remain high. Complex decisions in SAH care may be simplified with the use of standardized management protocols (SMPs). SMPs incorporate evidence-based guidelines into a practical framework for decision-making, thereby providing clinicians with an algorithm for organizing treatments. But despite these potential advantages, it is currently unknown whether SMPs may improve outcomes in the critical care of patients with SAH. We will conduct a systematic review of cohort studies and randomized control trials of adult patients with non-traumatic SAH who received care according to a standardized management protocol. Comprehensive search strategies will be developed for MEDLINE, EMBASE, WoS, CINAHL, and CENTRAL, to identify studies for review. The gray literature will be scanned for further eligible studies. Two reviewers will independently screen the material generated by the search to identify studies for inclusion. A standardized data extraction form will be used to collect information on study design, baseline characteristics, details of the management protocol employed, and primary and secondary outcomes. Where possible, meta-analyses with random-effects models will be used to calculate pooled estimates of effect sizes. Statistical heterogeneity will be evaluated with the I2 statistics, and risk of bias and reporting quality will be assessed independently and in duplicate with standardized scales. We anticipate a significant degree of clinical heterogeneity in our review, as protocols will likely vary in their content, implementation, and ICU setting. We will aim to summarize the current literature in this domain to understand if SMPs, as a low-cost process-targeted intervention, improve outcomes for critically ill patients with SAH. Our review will additionally inform future research endeavors to improve the processes of care for this patient population. CRD42017069173.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 68 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 10%
Student > Bachelor 7 10%
Researcher 5 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 7%
Other 4 6%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 26 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 31%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 9%
Neuroscience 5 7%
Computer Science 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 25 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 06 April 2018.
All research outputs
#3,650,170
of 23,036,991 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#676
of 2,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,708
of 328,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#24
of 47 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,036,991 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 328,968 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 47 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.