↓ Skip to main content

Risk factors and clinical presentation of craniocervical arterial dissection: A prospective study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
Title
Risk factors and clinical presentation of craniocervical arterial dissection: A prospective study
Published in
BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, September 2012
DOI 10.1186/1471-2474-13-164
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lucy C Thomas, Darren A Rivett, John R Attia, Christopher R Levi

Abstract

Craniocervical arterial dissection is a major cause of ischaemic stroke in young adults. The pathogenesis is not fully understood but is thought to be related to a combination of an intrinsic weakness in the arterial wall and an external trigger. Intrinsic susceptibility is thought to be a generalised arteriopathy, vascular anomaly or genetic predisposition. Proposed extrinsic factors include recent viral infection and minor mechanical trauma to the neck, including neck manipulation, which has raised concerns amongst manual practitioners in particular as to the appropriate screening of patients and avoidance of more vigorous therapeutic techniques. The presenting features of dissection may mimic a musculoskeletal presentation, creating a diagnostic dilemma for primary care practitioners. Early recognition is critical so that appropriate management can be commenced.The aims of this study are to prospectively investigate young patients ≤55 years admitted to hospital with radiologically diagnosed craniocervical arterial dissection compared to matched controls with stroke but not dissection, to identify risk factors and early presenting clinical features, so these may be more readily identified by primary care practitioners.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 86 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 19%
Researcher 14 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 12%
Other 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 17 19%
Unknown 17 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 11%
Psychology 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 21 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 25 April 2022.
All research outputs
#6,490,937
of 23,596,168 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#1,215
of 4,148 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,692
of 170,164 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#21
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,596,168 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,148 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 170,164 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.