↓ Skip to main content

Hypertonic saline, not mannitol, should be considered gold-standard medical therapy for intracranial hypertension

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, February 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
115 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
Hypertonic saline, not mannitol, should be considered gold-standard medical therapy for intracranial hypertension
Published in
Critical Care, February 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11182
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas F Marko

Abstract

Hyperosmolar therapy is the principal medical management strategy for elevated intracranial pressure. Mannitol has been the primary hyperosmolar agent for nearly a century and remains the de facto gold standard for medical management of intracranial hypertension. Over the past 25 years, however, hypertonic saline (HTS) has become a progressively more common alternative to mannitol, and several recent studies have suggested its relative superiority. These findings have prompted calls for large-scale comparator trials of mannitol and HTS, but such trials would only be necessary if the designation of mannitol as the gold standard is appropriate and if current evidence suggests its therapeutic equipoise with HTS. Mounting evidence supporting HTS suggests that neither of these conditions is necessarily true and, instead, mandates reassessment of the actual gold-standard agent for hyperosmolar therapy. In the present article I make the case that current evidence supports HTS, not mannitol, as the better choice for gold-standard therapy for medical management of intracranial hypertension. This is accomplished first by examining the evidence on which the apparent designation of mannitol as the presumed gold-standard is based, then by reviewing the recent comparative efficacy data for HTS versus mannitol, and finally by discussing additional clinical considerations for appropriate designation of a gold-standard agent for hyperosmolar therapy. This assessment has important implications both for patient care and for clinical trial design.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 111 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 17 15%
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Master 14 12%
Student > Postgraduate 11 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 9%
Other 35 30%
Unknown 13 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 72 63%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 4%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Psychology 3 3%
Other 11 10%
Unknown 15 13%
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 11 October 2016.
All research outputs
#6,444,944
of 25,377,790 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,684
of 6,555 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#41,010
of 169,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#31
of 131 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,377,790 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,555 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 169,448 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 131 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.