↓ Skip to main content

Imaging of acute ischemic stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Emergency Radiology, July 2018
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
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
180 Mendeley
Title
Imaging of acute ischemic stroke
Published in
Emergency Radiology, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10140-018-1623-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Scott Rudkin, Russell Cerejo, Ashis Tayal, Michael F. Goldberg

Abstract

For decades, imaging has been a critical component of the diagnostic evaluation and management of patients suspected of acute ischemic stroke (AIS). With each new advance in the treatment of AIS, the role of imaging has expanded in scope, sophistication, and importance in selecting patients who stand to benefit from potential therapies. Although the field of stroke imaging has been evolving for many years, there have been several major recent changes. Most notably, in late 2017, the window for treatment expanded to 24 h from onset of stroke symptoms in selected patients. Furthermore, for those patients in expanded time windows, guidelines issued in early 2018 now recommend the use of "advanced" imaging techniques in the acute setting, including CT perfusion and MRI, to guide therapeutic decision-making. With these and other changes, the emergency radiologist must be prepared to handle a growing volume and complexity of AIS imaging. This article reviews the various imaging modalities and techniques employed in the imaging of AIS patients, with an emphasis on recommendations from recent randomized controlled trials and national consensus guidelines.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 180 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 2%
Brazil 3 2%
Spain 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 169 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Postgraduate 29 16%
Researcher 27 15%
Other 22 12%
Student > Bachelor 21 12%
Student > Master 19 11%
Other 62 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 125 69%
Unspecified 20 11%
Neuroscience 11 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Computer Science 5 3%
Other 11 6%

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 26 April 2019.
All research outputs
#8,585,307
of 13,663,123 outputs
Outputs from Emergency Radiology
#156
of 264 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,070
of 266,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Emergency Radiology
#9
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,663,123 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 264 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 266,459 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.