| Title |
Thrombophilia testing for prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd007069.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Danny M Cohn, Fleur Vansenne, Corianne A de Borgie, Saskia Middeldorp |
| Abstract |
Tests for thrombophilia are being performed on a large scale in people after venous thromboembolism (VTE) even though the benefits of testing are still subject to debate. The most important benefit would be a reduction in the risk of recurrent VTE due to the use of additional prophylactic measures. This is an update of a review first published in 2009. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 15 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 4 | 27% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 20% |
| Australia | 1 | 7% |
| Ireland | 1 | 7% |
| Saudi Arabia | 1 | 7% |
| Singapore | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 4 | 27% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 7 | 47% |
| Members of the public | 5 | 33% |
| Scientists | 3 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 65 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 9 | 14% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 8% |
| Other | 17 | 26% |
| Unknown | 14 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 34 | 52% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 6% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 16 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 25 May 2014.
All research outputs
#4,198,282
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,492
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#39,760
of 286,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#92
of 195 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. 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 286,552 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 195 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 52% of its contemporaries.