↓ Skip to main content

Anticoagulation prescribing patterns in patients with cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
Title
Anticoagulation prescribing patterns in patients with cancer
Published in
Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, October 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11239-017-1558-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elaine Xiang, Tania Ahuja, Veronica Raco, Frank Cirrone, David Green, John Papadopoulos

Abstract

Cancer is a known hypercoagulable state that leads to an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Low molecular weight heparin remains the preferred anticoagulant for VTE in patients with cancer over vitamin K antagonist. However, the preferred anticoagulant in prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with cancer has yet to be determined. The direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are increasingly being utilized; however their role in cancer has only recently been investigated. The objective of this retrospective cohort was to describe real-world anticoagulation prescribing patterns in cancer patients at a large academic medical center between January 1, 2013 and October 31, 2016. We sought to assess the safety, tolerability, and efficacy of DOACs in patients with cancer for either VTE and/or AF. Patient demographic, clinical characteristics, as well as bleeding and thrombotic events were collected. There were 214 patients in our analysis, of which 71 patients (33%) received a DOAC [apixaban (n = 22), dabigatran (n = 17), and rivaroxaban (n = 32)]. There were fewer bleeding events and/or discontinuations in the DOAC group compared to enoxaparin (13 vs. 27, p = 0.022). There was no difference in major or minor bleeds or thromboembolic events in comparing DOAC to enoxaparin or DOAC to warfarin. This was a retrospective, single-institution study assessing the safety and efficacy of DOACs compared to warfarin or enoxaparin in patients with cancer. DOACs may represent an alternative to warfarin or enoxaparin in patients with cancer for VTE and/or stroke reduction in AF.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 87 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 16%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 24 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 34 39%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Mathematics 1 1%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 33 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 October 2017.
All research outputs
#13,546,999
of 23,576,969 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis
#542
of 1,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#159,932
of 328,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis
#12
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,576,969 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,006 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 328,160 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 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 59% of its contemporaries.