↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Once versus twice daily low molecular weight heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
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 (79th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Once versus twice daily low molecular weight heparin for the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003074.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sherab Bhutia, Peng F Wong

Abstract

In the initial treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is administered once or twice daily. A once daily treatment regimen is more convenient for the patient and may optimise home treatment. However, it is not clear whether a once daily treatment regimen is as safe and effective as a twice daily treatment regimen. This is the second update of a review first published in 2003.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 <1%
Argentina 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Unknown 111 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 13%
Student > Master 15 13%
Student > Bachelor 12 11%
Student > Postgraduate 11 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 9%
Other 25 22%
Unknown 26 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 56 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Environmental Science 2 2%
Other 10 9%
Unknown 29 25%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 24 June 2020.
All research outputs
#4,308,942
of 21,347,367 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,803
of 12,075 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,927
of 134,252 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#70
of 155 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,347,367 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,075 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.0. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 134,252 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 155 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 55% of its contemporaries.