↓ Skip to main content

Case report: (Pre)syncopal symptoms associated with a negative internal jugular venous pressure

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Physiology, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
12 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Case report: (Pre)syncopal symptoms associated with a negative internal jugular venous pressure
Published in
Frontiers in Physiology, August 2014
DOI 10.3389/fphys.2014.00317
Pubmed ID
Authors

Niels D. Olesen, Johannes J. van Lieshout, James P. Fisher, Thomas Seifert, Henning B. Nielsen, Niels H. Secher

Abstract

A siphon is suggested to support cerebral blood flow but appears not to be established because internal jugular venous (IJV) pressure is close to zero in upright humans. Thus, in eleven young healthy males, IJV pressure was 9 ± 1 mmHg (mean ± SE) when supine and fell to 3 ± 1 mmHg when seated, and middle cerebral artery mean blood velocity (MCA Vmean; P < 0.007) and the near-infrared spectroscopy-determined frontal lobe oxygenation (ScO2; P = 0.028) also decreased. Another subject, however, developed (pre)syncopal symptoms while seated and his IJV pressure decreased to -17 mmHg. Furthermore, his MCA Vmean decreased and yet within the time of observation ScO2 was not necessarily affected. These findings support the hypothesis that a negative IJV pressure that is a prerequisite for creation of a siphon provokes venous collapse inside the dura, and thereby limits rather than supports CBF.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 12 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 12 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 33%
Researcher 2 17%
Student > Master 2 17%
Lecturer 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 2 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 42%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 8%
Sports and Recreations 1 8%
Psychology 1 8%
Neuroscience 1 8%
Other 1 8%
Unknown 2 17%
Attention Score in Context

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 21 August 2014.
All research outputs
#20,234,388
of 22,760,687 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Physiology
#9,331
of 13,560 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#197,844
of 235,897 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Physiology
#76
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,760,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,560 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 235,897 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.