↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Recombinant factor VIIa for the prevention and treatment of bleeding in patients without haemophilia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
11 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
217 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
192 Mendeley
Title
Recombinant factor VIIa for the prevention and treatment of bleeding in patients without haemophilia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005011.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ewurabena Simpson, Yulia Lin, Simon Stanworth, Janet Birchall, Carolyn Doree, Chris Hyde

Abstract

Recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) is licensed for use in patients with haemophilia and inhibitory allo-antibodies and for prophylaxis and treatment of patients with congenital factor VII deficiency. It is also used for off-license indications to prevent bleeding in operations where blood loss is likely to be high, and/or to stop bleeding that is proving difficult to control by other means. This is the third version of the 2007 Cochrane review on the use of recombinant factor VIIa for the prevention and treatment of bleeding in patients without haemophilia, and has been updated to incorporate recent trial data.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 192 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 186 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 30 16%
Student > Bachelor 26 14%
Student > Master 23 12%
Other 15 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 13 7%
Other 48 25%
Unknown 37 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 97 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 5%
Psychology 5 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Other 19 10%
Unknown 39 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 November 2020.
All research outputs
#5,416,635
of 22,663,969 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,256
of 12,296 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,853
of 156,709 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#95
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,663,969 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,296 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.3. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 156,709 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 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.