↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antithrombotic treatment after stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
34 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 Mendeley
Title
Antithrombotic treatment after stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012144.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luke A Perry, Eivind Berge, Joshua Bowditch, Elisabeth Forfang, Ole Morten Rønning, Graeme J Hankey, Elmer Villanueva, Rustam Al-Shahi Salman

Abstract

Survivors of stroke due to intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) are at risk of thromboembolism. Antithrombotic (antiplatelet or anticoagulant) treatments may lower the risk of thromboembolism after ICH, but they may increase the risks of bleeding. To determine the overall effectiveness and safety of antithrombotic drugs for people with ICH. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (24 March 2017). We also searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL: the Cochrane Library 2017, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (from 1948 to March 2017), Embase Ovid (from 1980 to March 2017), and online registries of clinical trials (8 March 2017). We also screened the reference lists of included trials for additional, potentially relevant studies. We selected all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any antithrombotic treatment after ICH. Three review authors independently extracted data. We converted categorical estimates of effect to the risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR), as appropriate. We divided our analyses into short- and long-term treatment, and used fixed-effect modelling for meta-analyses. Three review authors independently assessed the included RCTs for risks of bias and we created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE. We included two RCTs with a total of 121 participants. Both RCTs were of short-term parenteral anticoagulation early after ICH: one tested heparin and the other enoxaparin. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was generally unclear or low, with the exception of blinding of participants and personnel, which was not done. The included RCTs did not report our chosen primary outcome (a composite outcome of all serious vascular events including ischaemic stroke, myocardial infarction, other major ischaemic event, ICH, major extracerebral haemorrhage, and vascular death). Parenteral anticoagulation did not cause a statistically significant difference in case fatality (RR 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 4.07 in one RCT involving 46 participants, low-quality evidence), ICH, or major extracerebral haemorrhage (no detected events in one RCT involving 75 participants, low-quality evidence), growth of ICH (RR 1.64, 95% CI 0.51 to 5.29 in two RCTs involving 121 participants, low-quality evidence), deep vein thrombosis (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.96 in two RCTs involving 121 participants, low quality evidence), or major ischaemic events (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.28 in two RCTs involving 121 participants, low quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence from RCTs to support or discourage the use of antithrombotic treatment after ICH. RCTs comparing starting versus avoiding antiplatelet or anticoagulant drugs after ICH appear justified and are needed in clinical practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 34 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 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 142 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 15%
Other 18 13%
Researcher 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Postgraduate 13 9%
Other 20 14%
Unknown 42 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 50 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 9%
Neuroscience 7 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 4%
Psychology 3 2%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 55 39%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 32. 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 28 April 2019.
All research outputs
#815,279
of 18,110,549 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,038
of 11,820 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,535
of 278,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#69
of 243 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,110,549 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,820 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 278,637 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 243 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 72% of its contemporaries.