↓ Skip to main content

Thrombosis in Philadelphia negative classical myeloproliferative neoplasms: a narrative review on epidemiology, risk assessment, and pathophysiologic mechanisms

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
Title
Thrombosis in Philadelphia negative classical myeloproliferative neoplasms: a narrative review on epidemiology, risk assessment, and pathophysiologic mechanisms
Published in
Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11239-018-1623-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Somedeb Ball, Kyaw Zin Thein, Abhishek Maiti, Kenneth Nugent

Abstract

Thrombosis is common in cancer patients and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) are common malignancies in elderly individuals and are known for a high incidence of thrombotic complications. Different risk factors have been identified in studies, and risk models have been developed to identify patients with MPN at higher risk for thrombosis. Several pathophysiological mechanisms help explain the increased likelihood of thrombosis in these patients. Factors, such as leukocyte and platelet activation leading to the formation of leukocyte-platelet aggregates, activation of the coagulation cascade by microparticles, high levels of inflammatory cytokines, and endothelial dysfunction have a crucial role in thrombosis in MPN patients. Recent studies have demonstrated a significant association between the allele burden of specific genetic mutations (mainly JAK2V617F) associated with MPN and the incidence of thrombotic events, thus suggesting a possible role for these mutations in thrombogenesis.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 21%
Other 5 15%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 10 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 47%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 10 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 19 February 2018.
All research outputs
#15,492,327
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis
#639
of 992 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,136
of 437,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis
#11
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 992 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.0. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% 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 437,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.