↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Thrombolysis (different doses, routes of administration and agents) for acute ischaemic stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 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 (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
172 Mendeley
Title
Thrombolysis (different doses, routes of administration and agents) for acute ischaemic stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000514.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna M Wardlaw, Panos Koumellis, Ming Liu

Abstract

Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability world wide. Thrombolysis with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) is licensed for treatment of acute ischaemic stroke in the early hours after symptom onset. It has been shown in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the 2009 Cochrane review of thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke to reduce dependency but at the increased risk of intracranial haemorrhage. Methods to reduce the risk of haemorrhage while retaining or enhancing the benefit could increase the use of thrombolytic treatment. While most available information comes from RCTs of intravenous rt-PA at 0.9 mg/kg, it is possible that other doses, drugs and other routes of administration might increase benefit and reduce the hazard.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 172 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 1%
Russia 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 167 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 15%
Student > Bachelor 23 13%
Student > Master 22 13%
Student > Postgraduate 16 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Other 41 24%
Unknown 29 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 78 45%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 6%
Neuroscience 10 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 6 3%
Other 18 10%
Unknown 42 24%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 03 May 2021.
All research outputs
#1,780,610
of 21,339,655 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,079
of 12,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,978
of 210,063 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#29
of 98 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,339,655 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,082 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% 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 210,063 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 98 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 71% of its contemporaries.