↓ Skip to main content

The Need for Novel Anticoagulation Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndrome

Overview of attention for article published in American journal of therapeutics (Print), January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
28 Mendeley
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.
Title
The Need for Novel Anticoagulation Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndrome
Published in
American journal of therapeutics (Print), January 2013
DOI 10.1097/mjt.0b013e31820543a3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suraj Chandrasekar, Rohit Loomba, Parinda Shah, Rohit Arora

Abstract

As acute coronary syndrome (ACS) becomes more common nationwide and current anticoagulation regimens used in patients with ACS continue to possess their shortcomings, the need for new anticoagulants is on the rise. Although heparin and warfarin are used effectively in patients with ACS, they both have significant side effects and delivery issues. New factor Xa inhibitors offer an oral alternative that functions early in the coagulation cascade. The role of these new drugs in ACS is explored here. Electronic search strategies were used to collect reviews, randomized controlled trials, and other studies. Databases used included Medline and Cochrane Library and hand selection. Sources selected were limited to those that discussed factor Xa inhibitors in the context of ACS. Selected studies were then assessed for quality and relevance and those deemed relevant included for analysis. Some of the factor Xa inhibitors such as rivaroxaban offer anticoagulation as effective as, if not more effective, heparin and warfarin with lower risks of bleeding and other adverse effects such as heparin-induced thrombocytopenia. Many of these new agents also come in oral form, making them easy for patients to manage and use daily.

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 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 4%
Unknown 27 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 6 21%
Student > Master 4 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 11%
Researcher 3 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Other 5 18%
Unknown 4 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 46%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 7 25%
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 2012.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from American journal of therapeutics (Print)
#707
of 1,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,308
of 289,007 outputs
Outputs of similar age from American journal of therapeutics (Print)
#6
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,367 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 41.5. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 289,007 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.