| Title |
Statins for primary prevention of venous thromboembolism
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd008203.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Lun Li, Peizhen Zhang, Jin Hui Tian, KeHu Yang |
| Abstract |
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in clinical practice. The efficacy of statins in the primary prevention of VTE remains unproven. This is an update of the review first published in 2011. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 17% |
| Spain | 1 | 8% |
| Norway | 1 | 8% |
| Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of | 1 | 8% |
| Canada | 1 | 8% |
| Costa Rica | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 10 | 83% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 1% |
| Chile | 1 | <1% |
| Netherlands | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 193 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 36 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 24 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 7% |
| Researcher | 13 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 39 | 20% |
| Unknown | 61 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 66 | 33% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 25 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 2% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 4 | 2% |
| Other | 24 | 12% |
| Unknown | 71 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 13 December 2022.
All research outputs
#1,924,879
of 25,806,763 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,095
of 13,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,206
of 362,575 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#93
of 269 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,806,763 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 35.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% 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 362,575 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 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 269 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.