↓ Skip to main content

Simultaneous monitoring of static and dynamic intracranial pressure parameters from two separate sensors in patients with cerebral bleeds: comparison of findings

Overview of attention for article published in BioMedical Engineering OnLine, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
35 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
Simultaneous monitoring of static and dynamic intracranial pressure parameters from two separate sensors in patients with cerebral bleeds: comparison of findings
Published in
BioMedical Engineering OnLine, September 2012
DOI 10.1186/1475-925x-11-66
Pubmed ID
Authors

Per Kristian Eide, Per Kristian Eide, Sverre Holm, Wilhelm Sorteberg

Abstract

We recently reported that in an experimental setting the zero pressure level of solid intracranial pressure (ICP) sensors can be altered by electrostatics discharges. Changes in the zero pressure level would alter the ICP level (mean ICP); whether spontaneous changes in mean ICP happen in clinical settings is not known. This can be addressed by comparing the ICP parameters level and waveform of simultaneous ICP signals. To this end, we retrieved our recordings in patients with cerebral bleeds wherein the ICP had been recorded simultaneously from two different sensors. Materials and Methods: During a time period of 10 years, 17 patients with cerebral bleeds were monitored with two ICP sensors simultaneously; sensor 1 was always a solid sensor while Sensor 2 was a solid -, a fluid - or an air-pouch sensor. The simultaneous signals were analyzed with automatic identification of the cardiac induced ICP waves. The output was determined in consecutive 6-s time windows, both with regard to the static parameter mean ICP and the dynamic parameters (mean wave amplitude, MWA, and mean wave rise time, MWRT). Differences in mean ICP, MWA and MWRT between the two sensors were determined. Transfer functions between the sensors were determined to evaluate how sensors reproduce the ICP waveform.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 23%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Professor 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 6 17%
Unknown 2 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 34%
Engineering 5 14%
Psychology 4 11%
Neuroscience 4 11%
Physics and Astronomy 2 6%
Other 4 11%
Unknown 4 11%

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 10 September 2012.
All research outputs
#2,935,206
of 4,507,211 outputs
Outputs from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#158
of 315 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#47,714
of 78,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#9
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 4,507,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 315 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.7. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 78,491 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.