↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Antifibrinolytics for heavy menstrual bleeding

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2000
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 (89th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
1 tweeter
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
191 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
Antifibrinolytics for heavy menstrual bleeding
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, October 2000
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000249
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anne Lethaby, Cindy Farquhar, Inez Cooke

Abstract

Heavy menstrual bleeding (HMB) is an important cause of ill health in women. Medical therapy, with the avoidance of possibly unnecessary surgery, is an attractive treatment option. A wide variety of medications are available to reduce heavy menstrual bleeding but there is considerable variation in practice and uncertainty about the most appropriate therapy. Plasminogen activators are a group of enzymes that cause fibrinolysis (the dissolution of clots). An increase in the levels of plasminogen activators has been found in the endometrium of women with heavy menstrual bleeding compared to those with normal menstrual loss. Plasminogen activator inhibitors (antifibrinolytic agents) have therefore been promoted as a treatment for heavy menstrual bleeding. There has been a reluctance to prescribe tranexamic acid due to possible side effects of the drugs such as an increased risk of thrombogenic disease (deep venous thrombosis). Long term studies in Sweden, however, have shown that the rate of incidence of thrombosis in women treated with tranexamic acid is comparable with the spontaneous frequency of thrombosis in women.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 73 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 9%
Other 17 23%
Unknown 10 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 56%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 4%
Social Sciences 3 4%
Other 9 12%
Unknown 11 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 02 March 2018.
All research outputs
#1,620,101
of 17,361,274 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,027
of 11,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,273
of 199,918 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#78
of 220 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,361,274 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,660 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% 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 199,918 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 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 220 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 65% of its contemporaries.