↓ Skip to main content

CMAJ

Diagnosis and treatment of deep-vein thrombosis

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Medical Association Journal, October 2006
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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 X users
wikipedia
17 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
157 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
346 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Diagnosis and treatment of deep-vein thrombosis
Published in
Canadian Medical Association Journal, October 2006
DOI 10.1503/cmaj.060366
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dimitrios Scarvelis, Philip S Wells

Abstract

Deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) is a common condition that can lead to complications such as postphlebitic syndrome, pulmonary embolism and death. The approach to the diagnosis of DVT has evolved over the years. Currently an algorithm strategy combining pretest probability, D-dimer testing and compression ultrasound imaging allows for safe and convenient investigation of suspected lower-extremity thrombosis. Patients with low pretest probability and a negative D-dimer test result can have proximal DVT excluded without the need for diagnostic imaging. The mainstay of treatment of DVT is anticoagulation therapy, whereas interventions such as thrombolysis and placement of inferior vena cava filters are reserved for special situations. The use of low-molecular-weight heparin allows for outpatient management of most patients with DVT. The duration of anticoagulation therapy depends on whether the primary event was idiopathic or secondary to a transient risk factor. More research is required to optimally define the factors that predict an increased risk of recurrent DVT to determine which patients can benefit from extended anticoagulant therapy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 346 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 <1%
Brazil 2 <1%
Zimbabwe 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 335 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 44 13%
Student > Master 38 11%
Other 34 10%
Student > Postgraduate 30 9%
Researcher 27 8%
Other 75 22%
Unknown 98 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 168 49%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 2%
Engineering 6 2%
Other 31 9%
Unknown 106 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 March 2023.
All research outputs
#1,641,707
of 24,641,327 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#2,037
of 9,232 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,895
of 73,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#11
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,641,327 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,232 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% 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 73,312 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.