↓ 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
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
104 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 12 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 104 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 101 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 16 15%
Researcher 13 13%
Student > Postgraduate 12 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 9 9%
Other 23 22%
Unknown 19 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 <1%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 25 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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
#2,844,756
of 18,026,194 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,400
of 11,808 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,490
of 127,819 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#60
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,026,194 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 84th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,808 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
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 127,819 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 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 63% of its contemporaries.