↓ Skip to main content

Nonsurgical therapy for hydrocephalus: a comprehensive and critical review

Overview of attention for article published in Fluids and Barriers of the CNS, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
1 patent
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
206 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
Nonsurgical therapy for hydrocephalus: a comprehensive and critical review
Published in
Fluids and Barriers of the CNS, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12987-016-0025-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marc R. Del Bigio, Domenico L. Di Curzio

Abstract

Pharmacological interventions have been tested experimentally and clinically to prevent hydrocephalus and avoid the need for shunting beginning in the 1950s. Clinical trials of varied quality have not demonstrated lasting and convincing protective effects through manipulation of cerebrospinal fluid production, diuresis, blood clot fibrinolysis, or manipulation of fibrosis in the subarachnoid compartment, although there remains some promise in the latter areas. Acetazolamide bolus seems to be useful for predicting shunt response in adults with hydrocephalus. Neuroprotection in the situation of established hydrocephalus has been tested experimentally beginning more recently. Therapies designed to modify blood flow or pulsation, reduce inflammation, reduce oxidative damage, or protect neurons are so far of limited success; more experimental work is needed in these areas. As has been recommended for preclinical studies in stroke and brain trauma, stringent conditions should be met for preclinical studies in hydrocephalus.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 206 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 30 15%
Student > Postgraduate 20 10%
Student > Master 16 8%
Other 15 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 7%
Other 39 19%
Unknown 71 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 30%
Neuroscience 26 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 2%
Other 25 12%
Unknown 75 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 31 January 2024.
All research outputs
#4,617,095
of 25,270,999 outputs
Outputs from Fluids and Barriers of the CNS
#102
of 450 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#74,807
of 409,446 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Fluids and Barriers of the CNS
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,270,999 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 450 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 409,446 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 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