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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 33% |
Canada | 1 | 33% |
Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 123 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 | 121 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 19 | 15% |
Student > Bachelor | 14 | 11% |
Researcher | 12 | 10% |
Other | 8 | 7% |
Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 7% |
Other | 25 | 20% |
Unknown | 37 | 30% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 51 | 41% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 9% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 5% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 3% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 2% |
Other | 9 | 7% |
Unknown | 39 | 32% |
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 04 May 2021.
All research outputs
#6,523,781
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,793
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#33,953
of 171,041 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#24
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% 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 171,041 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 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 59% of its contemporaries.