You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Catheter-directed thrombolysis for extensive iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis: review of literature and ongoing trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1586/14779072.2016.1121096 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Aaron Liew, James Douketis |
| Abstract |
In patients with extensive lower limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT) that, typically, extends into the iliofemoral veins, catheter directed thrombolysis (CDT) can achieve faster and more complete thrombus lysis as compared with systemic thrombolysis, while providing an acceptable safety profile through administration of lower doses of thrombolytic agents. Through a reduction in thrombus burden, CDT has the potential to mitigate the risk for post-thrombotic syndrome by restoring venous patency and preserving venous valve function. The efficacy of CDT may be improved by adjunctive approaches that include percutaneous mechanical thrombectomy, angioplasty with or without stenting, and ultrasound assisted CDT. CDT may also have a specific therapeutic role in the management of iliofemoral DVT involving patients who are pregnant or with May-Thurner syndrome. This article summarizes the literature in this area and discusses recently completed and ongoing randomized trials on the use of CDT in patients with extensive lower limb DVT. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 38 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 6 | 16% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 16% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Professor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 8 | 21% |
| Unknown | 9 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 55% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 3% |
| Earth and Planetary Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 26% |
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 13 October 2016.
All research outputs
#18,432,465
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy
#505
of 743 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#262,244
of 363,134 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Expert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 743 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 363,134 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.