| 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 5 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 211 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 | 205 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 32 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 27 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 24 | 11% |
| Other | 15 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 13 | 6% |
| Other | 51 | 24% |
| Unknown | 49 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 105 | 50% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 10 | 5% |
| Psychology | 5 | 2% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 20 | 9% |
| Unknown | 50 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 18 September 2023.
All research outputs
#2,726,496
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,326
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,013
of 169,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#70
of 181 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% 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 169,204 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 181 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 61% of its contemporaries.