↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Thrombolysis for acute upper extremity deep vein thrombosis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
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 (87th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (58th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
10 tweeters
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
122 Mendeley
Title
Thrombolysis for acute upper extremity deep vein thrombosis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd012175.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joshua Feinberg, Emil Eik Nielsen, Janus C Jakobsen

Abstract

About 5% to 10% of all deep vein thromboses occur in the upper extremities. Serious complications of upper extremity deep vein thrombosis, such as post-thrombotic syndrome and pulmonary embolism, may in theory be avoided using thrombolysis. No systematic review has assessed the effects of thrombolysis for the treatment of individuals with acute upper extremity deep vein thrombosis. To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of thrombolysis for the treatment of individuals with acute upper extremity deep vein thrombosis. The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist (CIS) searched the Specialised Register (29 March 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 2), and three trial registries (World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ISRCTN registry) for ongoing and unpublished studies. We additionally searched the registries of the European Medical Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration (December 2016). We planned to include randomised clinical trials irrespective of publication type, publication date and language that investigated the effects of thrombolytics added to anticoagulation, thrombolysis versus anticoagulation, or thrombolysis versus any other type of medical intervention for the treatment of acute upper extremity deep vein thrombosis. Two review authors independently screened all records to identify those that met inclusion criteria. We planned to use the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We planned to use trial domains to assess the risks of systematic error (bias) in the trials. We planned to conduct trial sequential analyses to control for the risk of random errors and to assess the robustness of our conclusions. We planned to consider a P value of 0.025 or less as statistically significant. We planned to assess the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Our primary outcomes were severe bleeding, pulmonary embolism, and all-cause mortality. We found no trials eligible for inclusion. We also identified no ongoing trials. There is currently insufficient evidence from which to draw conclusion on the benefits or harms of thrombolysis for the treatment of individuals with acute upper extremity deep vein thrombosis as an add-on therapy to anticoagulation, alone compared with anticoagulation, or alone compared with any other type of medical intervention. Large randomised clinical trials with a low risk of bias are warranted. They should focus on clinical outcomes and not solely on surrogate measures.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 122 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 122 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 15%
Student > Master 17 14%
Researcher 10 8%
Student > Postgraduate 9 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 6%
Other 21 17%
Unknown 40 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 34%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 12%
Psychology 4 3%
Unspecified 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 13 11%
Unknown 43 35%

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 10 May 2022.
All research outputs
#2,060,884
of 21,763,118 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,550
of 12,101 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#57,305
of 446,163 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#99
of 236 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 21,763,118 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 12,101 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 446,163 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 236 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 58% of its contemporaries.