↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for treatment of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) in multiple sclerosis patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 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 (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
Title
Percutaneous transluminal angioplasty for treatment of chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency (CCSVI) in multiple sclerosis patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009903.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Esther J van Zuuren, Zbys Fedorowicz, Eugenio Pucci, Vanitha A Jagannath, Edward W Robak

Abstract

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a leading cause of neurological disability in young adults. The most widely accepted hypothesis regarding its pathogenesis is that it is an immune-mediated disease. It has been hypothesised more recently that chronic venous congestion may be an important factor in the pathogenesis of MS. This concept has been named 'chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency' (CCSVI) and is characterised by stenoses of either the internal jugular or azygos veins, or both. It is suggested that these stenoses restrict the normal blood flow from the brain, causing the deposition of iron in the brain and the eventual triggering of an auto-immune response. The proposed treatment for CCSVI is percutaneous transluminal angioplasty, also known as the 'liberation procedure', which is claimed to improve the blood flow in the brain thereby alleviating some of the symptoms of MS.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 2 2%
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 84 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 24%
Researcher 14 16%
Student > Bachelor 10 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 11%
Other 6 7%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 8 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 39 45%
Psychology 11 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 7%
Social Sciences 6 7%
Neuroscience 4 5%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 14 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 21 August 2015.
All research outputs
#1,459,573
of 13,360,873 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,088
of 10,564 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,328
of 248,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#231
of 504 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,360,873 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,564 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 248,158 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 504 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 54% of its contemporaries.