↓ Skip to main content

Spontaneous Cervical Artery Dissection: The Borgess Classification

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (51st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Spontaneous Cervical Artery Dissection: The Borgess Classification
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, January 2013
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2013.00133
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brandon C. Perry, Firas Al-Ali

Abstract

Background and Purpose: The pathogenesis of spontaneous cervical artery dissections (sCAD) and its best medical treatment are debated. This may be due to a lack of clear classification of sCAD. We propose the new Borgess classification of sCAD, based on the presence or absence of intimal tear as depicted on imaging studies and effect on blood flow. Materials and Methods: This is a single-center investigator-initiated registry on consecutive patients treated for sCAD. In the Borgess classification, type I dissections have intact intima and type II dissections have an intimal tear. Results: Forty-four patients and 52 dissected arteries were found. Forty-nine of 52 dissections (93%) were treated with dual anti-platelet therapy. Twenty-one of 52 dissections were type I; 31 were type II. Type I dissections were more likely to present with ischemic symptoms [stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA)] (p = 0.001). More type I dissections occurred in the vertebral artery, while more type II dissections occurred in the internal carotid artery (p < 0.001). Follow-up averaged 18.1 months (range: 3-108 months) with no recurrent ischemic events (stroke, TIA), deaths, or hemorrhage. Forty-six vessels had 6 month follow-up on medical treatment; 19/46 (41%) healed. Type I dissections were more likely to heal than type II (p < 0.001). Conclusion: The two dissection types in the Borgess classification appear to relate to clinical presentation and rate of healing, making the classification useful in clinical management. Dual anti-platelet therapy for sCAD seems to have a very low risk of subsequent stroke; however, a large prospective study is needed to investigate the best treatment.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 2%
South Africa 1 2%
Unknown 48 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 14%
Student > Postgraduate 7 14%
Researcher 7 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 14%
Other 4 8%
Other 14 28%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 54%
Neuroscience 5 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Sports and Recreations 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 11 22%
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 15 February 2023.
All research outputs
#18,191,218
of 23,367,368 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#7,319
of 12,286 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#213,523
of 284,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#82
of 210 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,367,368 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,286 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% 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 284,012 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 210 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 51% of its contemporaries.