↓ Skip to main content

Delayed intracranial hemorrhage in elderly anticoagulated patients sustaining a minor fall

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Emergency Medicine, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 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
Delayed intracranial hemorrhage in elderly anticoagulated patients sustaining a minor fall
Published in
BMC Emergency Medicine, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12873-018-0179-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nolan Mann, Kellen Welch, Andrew Martin, Michael Subichin, Katherine Wietecha, Lauren E. Birmingham, Tiffany D. Marchand, Richard L. George

Abstract

Falls are a common cause of hospitalization, morbidity, and mortality among the elderly in the United States. Evidence-based imaging recommendations for evaluation of delayed intracranial hemorrhage (DICH) are not generally agreed upon. The purpose of this project was to evaluate the incidence of DICH detected by head computer tomography (CT) among an elderly population on pre-injury anticoagulant or antiplatelet (ACAP) therapy. Data from a Level 1 Trauma Center trauma registry was used to assess the incidence of DICH in an elderly population of patients (≥65 years) who sustained a minor fall while on pre-injury ACAP medications. Counts and percentages are reported. Data on 1076 elderly trauma patients were downloaded, of which 838 sustained a minor fall and 513 were found to be using a pre-injury ACAP medication. One patient (0.46%) with a DICH was identified out of 218 patients who received a routine repeat head CT. Aspirin and warfarin were the most common pre-injury ACAP medications and 19.27% (42/218) of patients were found to be using multiple ACAP medications. Universal screening protocols promote immediate-term patient safety, but do so at a great expense with respect to health expenditures and increased radiation exposure. This analysis highlights the need for an effective risk assessment tool for DICH that would reduce the burden of unnecessary screenings while still identifying life-threatening intracranial hemorrhages in affected patients.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 16%
Student > Master 8 14%
Other 7 12%
Student > Postgraduate 7 12%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 10 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 46%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 14%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 15 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 29 October 2020.
All research outputs
#8,859,035
of 16,699,900 outputs
Outputs from BMC Emergency Medicine
#210
of 493 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,802
of 281,624 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Emergency Medicine
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,699,900 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 493 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 281,624 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them