↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Oral direct thrombin inhibitors or oral factor Xa inhibitors for the treatment of pulmonary embolism

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
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 (95th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (79th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
53 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
34 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
193 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Oral direct thrombin inhibitors or oral factor Xa inhibitors for the treatment of pulmonary embolism
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010957.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lindsay Robertson, Patrick Kesteven, James E McCaslin

Abstract

Pulmonary embolism is a potentially life-threatening condition in which a clot can travel from the deep veins, most commonly in the leg, up to the lungs. Previously, a pulmonary embolism was treated with the anticoagulants heparin and vitamin K antagonists. Recently, however, two forms of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have been developed: oral direct thrombin inhibitors (DTI) and oral factor Xa inhibitors. The new drugs have characteristics that may be favourable over conventional treatment, including oral administration, a predictable effect, lack of frequent monitoring or re-dosing and few known drug interactions. To date, no Cochrane review has measured the effectiveness and safety of these drugs in the long-term treatment (minimum duration of three months) of pulmonary embolism. To assess the effectiveness of oral DTIs and oral factor Xa inhibitors for the long-term treatment of pulmonary embolism. The Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched January 2015) and the Cochrane Register of Studies (last searched January 2015). Clinical trials databases were also searched for details of ongoing or unpublished studies. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles retrieved by electronic searches for additional citations. We included randomised controlled trials in which patients with a pulmonary embolism confirmed by standard imaging techniques were allocated to receive an oral DTI or an oral factor Xa inhibitor for the long-term (minimum duration three months) treatment of pulmonary embolism. Two review authors (LR, JM) independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion with the third author (PK). We used meta-analyses when we considered heterogeneity low. The two primary outcomes were recurrent venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism. Other outcomes included all-cause mortality and major bleeding. We calculated all outcomes using an odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We included five randomised controlled trials with a total of 7897 participants. Two studies tested oral DTIs (dabigatran) and three studies tested oral factor Xa inhibitors (one rivaroxaban, one edoxaban and one apixaban).Analysis showed no difference in the effectiveness of oral DTIs and standard anticoagulation in preventing recurrent pulmonary embolism (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.04; two studies; 1602 participants; high quality evidence), recurrent venous thromboembolism (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.66; two studies; 1602 participants; high quality evidence), deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.13; two studies; 1602 participants; high quality evidence) and major bleeding (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.68; two studies; 1527 participants; high quality evidence).For oral factor Xa inhibitors, when we combined the three included studies together in meta-analyses, there was significant heterogeneity for recurrent pulmonary embolism (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.46 to 2.56; two studies; 4509 participants; I(2) = 58%; moderate quality evidence). The oral factor Xa inhibitors were no more or less effective in the prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.15; three studies; 6295 participants; high quality evidence), DVT (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.32; two studies; 4509 participants; high quality evidence), all-cause mortality (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.70; one study; 4817 participants; moderate quality evidence) or major bleeding (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.62; two studies; 4507 participants; high quality evidence). None of the studies measured quality of life. Moderate to high quality evidence suggests that there are no differences between DOACs and standard anticoagulation for the long-term treatment of pulmonary embolism, for the outcomes recurrent pulmonary embolism, recurrent venous thromboembolism, DVT, all-cause mortality and major bleeding.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 53 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 193 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Sweden 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Unknown 188 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 19%
Researcher 30 16%
Student > Bachelor 29 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 9%
Other 14 7%
Other 33 17%
Unknown 34 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 92 48%
Nursing and Health Professions 21 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 6%
Social Sciences 9 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Other 13 7%
Unknown 42 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 43. 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 17 May 2020.
All research outputs
#640,736
of 18,812,327 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,502
of 11,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,384
of 383,470 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#45
of 217 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,812,327 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 11,864 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 383,470 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 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 217 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.