↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Low molecular weight heparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with lower-limb immobilization

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 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 (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
50 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
191 Mendeley
Title
Low molecular weight heparin for prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with lower-limb immobilization
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, August 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd006681.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aniek AG Zee, Kelly van Lieshout, Maaike van der Heide, Loes Janssen, Heinrich MJ Janzing

Abstract

Immobilization of the lower limb is a risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are anticoagulants, which might be used in adult patients with lower-limb immobilization to prevent deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and its complications. This is an update of the review first published in 2008. To assess the effectiveness of low molecular weight heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients with lower-limb immobilization in an ambulatory setting. For this update, the Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Specialised Register, CENTRAL, and three trials registers (April 2017). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that described thromboprophylaxis by means of LMWH compared with no prophylaxis or placebo in adult patients with lower-limb immobilization. Immobilization was by means of a plaster cast or brace. Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. The review authors contacted the trial authors for additional information if required. Statistical analysis was carried out using Review Manager 5. We included eight RCTs that fulfilled our criteria, with a total of 3680 participants. The quality of evidence, according GRADE, varied by outcome and ranged from low to moderate. We found an incidence of DVT ranging from 4.3% to 40% in patients who had a leg injury that had been immobilized in a plaster cast or a brace for at least one week, and who received no prophylaxis, or placebo. This number was significantly lower in patients who received daily subcutaneous injections of LMWH during immobilization, with event rates ranging from 0% to 37% (odds ratio (OR) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.61; P = 0.23; with minimal evidence of heterogeneity, I² = 26%; seven studies; 1676 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Comparable results were seen in the following groups of participants: patients with below-knee casts, conservatively treated patients (non-operated patients), operated patients, patients with fractures, patients with soft-tissue injuries, and patients with distal or proximal thrombosis. No clear differences were found between the LMWH and control groups for pulmonary embolism (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.47; P = 0.21; I² = 16%; five studies, 2517 participants; low-quality evidence). The studies also showed less symptomatic VTE in the LMWH groups compared with the control groups (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.76; P = 0.31; I² = 16%; six studies; 2924 participants; low-quality evidence). One death was reported in the included studies, but no deaths due to pulmonary embolism were reported. Complications of major adverse events were rare, with minor bleeding the main adverse events reported. Moderate-quality evidence showed that the use of LMWH in outpatients reduced DVT when immobilization of the lower limb was required, when compared with no prophylaxis or placebo. The quality of the evidence was reduced to moderate because of risk of selection and attrition bias in the included studies. Low-quality evidence showed no clear differences in PE between the LMWH and control groups, but less symptomatic VTE in the LMWH groups. The quality of the evidence was downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 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 191 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 188 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 18%
Researcher 23 12%
Student > Bachelor 20 10%
Student > Postgraduate 18 9%
Other 14 7%
Other 36 19%
Unknown 46 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 2%
Psychology 4 2%
Social Sciences 4 2%
Other 14 7%
Unknown 54 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. 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 08 April 2021.
All research outputs
#621,901
of 18,844,683 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,458
of 11,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,415
of 282,077 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#40
of 246 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,844,683 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,868 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 282,077 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 246 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.