↓ 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

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
70 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 70 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 2 3%
Australia 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 64 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 21%
Researcher 13 19%
Other 8 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Other 16 23%
Unknown 7 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 13%
Neuroscience 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 11 16%

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 28 June 2014.
All research outputs
#2,725,626
of 12,373,620 outputs
Outputs from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#548
of 2,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,158
of 125,573 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders
#8
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,373,620 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 77th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,454 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. 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 125,573 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 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.