↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Hypothermia for traumatic brain injury

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
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 (85th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
5 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
68 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
191 Mendeley
Title
Hypothermia for traumatic brain injury
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001048.pub5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sharon R Lewis, David JW Evans, Andrew R Butler, Oliver J Schofield-Robinson, Phil Alderson

Abstract

Hypothermia has been used in the treatment of brain injury for many years. Encouraging results from small trials and laboratory studies led to renewed interest in the area and some larger trials. To determine the effect of mild hypothermia for traumatic brain injury (TBI) on mortality, long-term functional outcomes and complications. We ran and incorporated studies from database searches to 21 March 2016. We searched the Cochrane Injuries Group's Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase Classic+Embase (OvidSP), PubMed, ISI Web of science (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, CPCI-S & CPSI-SSH), clinical trials registers, and screened reference lists. We also re-ran these searches pre-publication in June 2017; the result from this search is presented in 'Studies awaiting classification'. We included randomised controlled trials of participants with closed TBI requiring hospitalisation who were treated with hypothermia to a maximum of 35 ºC for at least 12 consecutive hours. Treatment with hypothermia was compared to maintenance with normothermia (36.5 to 38 ºC). Two review authors assessed data on mortality, unfavourable outcomes according to the Glasgow Outcome Scale, and pneumonia. We included 37 eligible trials with a total of 3110 randomised participants; nine of these were new studies since the last update (2009) and five studies had been previously excluded but were re-assessed and included during the 2017 update. We identified two ongoing studies from searches of clinical trials registers and database searches and two studies await classification.Studies included both adults and children with TBI. Most studies commenced treatment immediately on admission to hospital or after craniotomies and all treatment was maintained for at least 24 hours. Thirty-three studies reported data for mortality, 31 studies reported data for unfavourable outcomes (death, vegetative state or severe disability), and 14 studies reported pneumonia. Visual inspection of the results for these outcomes showed inconsistencies among studies, with differences in the direction of effect, and we did not pool these data for meta-analysis. We considered duration of hypothermia therapy and the length of follow-up in collected data for these subgroups; differences in study data remained such that we did not perform meta-analysis.Studies were generally poorly reported and we were unable to assess risk of bias adequately. Heterogeneity was evident both in the trial designs and participant inclusion. Inconsistencies in results may be explained by heterogeneity among study participants or bias introduced by individual study methodology but we did not explore this in detail in subgroup or sensitivity analyses. We used the GRADE approach to judge the quality of the evidence for each outcome and downgraded the evidence for mortality and unfavourable outcome to very low. We downgraded the evidence for the pneumonia outcome to low. Despite a large number studies, there remains no high-quality evidence that hypothermia is beneficial in the treatment of people with TBI. Further research, which is methodologically robust, is required in this field to establish the effect of hypothermia for people with TBI.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 191 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 31 16%
Student > Master 28 15%
Researcher 18 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 8%
Student > Postgraduate 10 5%
Other 33 17%
Unknown 56 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 64 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 10%
Psychology 9 5%
Neuroscience 9 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 20 10%
Unknown 67 35%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 27 November 2022.
All research outputs
#2,333,078
of 22,603,384 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,935
of 12,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,998
of 297,524 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#120
of 236 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,603,384 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 12,289 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% 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 297,524 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 236 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.