↓ Skip to main content

CCSVI and MS: no meaning, no fact

Overview of attention for article published in Neurological Sciences, May 2012
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 (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
19 Mendeley
Title
CCSVI and MS: no meaning, no fact
Published in
Neurological Sciences, May 2012
DOI 10.1007/s10072-012-1101-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Claudio Baracchini, Matteo Atzori, Paolo Gallo

Abstract

A condition called "chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency" (CCSVI) has been postulated to play a role in the pathogenesis of multiple sclerosis (MS). This hypothesis implies that a complex pattern of extracranial venous stenosis determines a venous reflux into the brain of MS patients, followed by increased intravenous pressure, blood-brain barrier breakdown and iron deposition into the brain parenchyma, thus triggering a local inflammatory response. In this review, we critically analyze the scientific basis of CCSVI, the current literature on the relationship between CCSVI and MS, as well as the ultrasound methodology that has been claimed to provide evidence of impaired cerebral venous drainage. We show that no piece of the CCSVI theory has a solid supportive scientific evidence. The CCSVI appears to be a rather alien condition and its existence should be definitely questioned. Finally, no proven (i.e., based on strict scientific methodology and on the rules of evidence-based medicine) therapeutic effect of the "liberation" procedure (unblocking the extracranial venous obstruction using angioplasty) has been shown up to date.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 5%
Unknown 18 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 4 21%
Lecturer 3 16%
Unspecified 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Other 6 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 37%
Unspecified 3 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 16%
Psychology 2 11%
Neuroscience 2 11%
Other 2 11%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 11 February 2016.
All research outputs
#2,176,805
of 12,534,020 outputs
Outputs from Neurological Sciences
#206
of 1,091 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,452
of 118,963 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neurological Sciences
#3
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,534,020 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,091 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 118,963 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 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.