↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Pharmacomechanical thrombectomy for iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
32 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
145 Mendeley
Title
Pharmacomechanical thrombectomy for iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd011536.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lindsay Robertson, Olivia McBride, Anne Burdess

Abstract

Deep venous thrombosis (DVT) occurs in approximately one in 1000 adults every year, and has an annual mortality of 14.6%. In particular, iliofemoral DVT can lead to recurrent thrombosis and post-thrombotic syndrome (PTS), a painful condition which can lead to chronic venous insufficiency, oedema, and ulceration. It causes significant disability, impaired quality of life, and economic burden. Early thrombus removal techniques have been advocated in patients with an iliofemoral DVT in order to improve vein patency, prevent valvular dysfunction, and reduce future complications, such as post-thrombotic syndrome and venous ulceration. One such technique is pharmacomechanical thrombectomy, a combination of catheter-based thrombectomy and catheter-directed thrombolysis. To assess the effects of pharmacomechanical thrombectomy versus anticoagulation (alone or with compression stockings), mechanical thrombectomy, thrombolysis, or other endovascular techniques in the management of people with acute DVT of the iliofemoral vein. The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Specialised Register (last searched December 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (last searched December 2015). We searched clinical trials databases for details of ongoing or unpublished studies and the reference lists of relevant articles retrieved by electronic searches for additional citations. Randomised controlled trials in which patients with an iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis were allocated to receive pharmacomechanical thrombectomy versus anticoagulation, mechanical thrombectomy, thrombolysis (systemic or catheter directed thrombolysis), or other endovascular techniques for the treatment of iliofemoral DVT. At least two review authors independently assessed studies identified for potential inclusion. We found no randomised controlled trials that met the eligibility criteria for this review. We identified one ongoing study. There were no randomised controlled trials that assessed the effects of pharmacomechanical thrombectomy versus anticoagulation (alone or with compression stockings), mechanical thrombectomy, thrombolysis, or other endovascular techniques in the management of people with acute DVT of the iliofemoral vein that met the eligibility criteria for this review. Further high quality randomised controlled trials are needed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 145 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 22 15%
Student > Master 20 14%
Researcher 15 10%
Other 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 8%
Other 28 19%
Unknown 38 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 60 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 44 30%
Attention Score in Context

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 19 April 2019.
All research outputs
#6,381,945
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,695
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#88,895
of 317,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#163
of 234 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 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 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 317,676 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 234 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.