↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Anticoagulants versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatories or placebo for treatment of venous thromboembolism

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2006
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 Mendeley
Title
Anticoagulants versus non-steroidal anti-inflammatories or placebo for treatment of venous thromboembolism
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2006
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003746.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

David K Cundiff, Juliet Manyemba, John C Pezzullo

Abstract

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the term given to any thromboembolic event (blocking of a blood vessel by a blood clot) occurring in the venous system. The current treatment recommended for VTE is anticoagulation (reduction of the blood's ability to clot). The aim of this review is to summarize results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the effectiveness of anticoagulants (heparins, including low molecular weight heparins and vitamin K antagonists) in the treatment of VTE, compared to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or placebo.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 97 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 19%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Researcher 12 12%
Other 8 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 8%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 18 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 22 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 January 2015.
All research outputs
#4,206,515
of 17,086,389 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,604
of 11,629 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,876
of 260,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#315
of 498 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,086,389 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,629 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.6. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% 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 260,729 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 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 498 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.