| Title |
Anticoagulant interventions in hospitalized patients with COVID‐19: A scoping review of randomized controlled trials and call for international collaboration
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Thrombosis & Haemostasis, October 2020
|
| DOI | 10.1111/jth.15094 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Tobias Tritschler, Marie‐Eve Mathieu, Leslie Skeith, Marc Rodger, Saskia Middeldorp, Timothy Brighton, Per Morten Sandset, Susan R. Kahn, Derek C. Angus, Marc Blondon, Marc J. Bonten, Marco Cattaneo, Mary Cushman, Lennie P.G. Derde, Maria T. DeSancho, Jean‐Luc Diehl, Ewan Goligher, Bernd Jilma, Peter Jüni, Patrick R. Lawler, Marco Marietta, John C. Marshall, Colin McArthur, Carlos Henrique Miranda, Tristan Mirault, Nuccia Morici, Usha Perepu, Christian Schörgenhofer, Michelle Sholzberg, Alex C. Spyropoulos, Steve A. Webb, Ryan Zarychanski, Stéphane Zuily, Grégoire Le Gal, for the International Network of VENous Thromboembolism Clinical Research Networks INVENT-VTE |
Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.
An error occurred while generating this chart. Please try again later.
No score history available for this output yet. Please try again later.
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 31 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 6 | 19% |
| United States | 5 | 16% |
| Spain | 2 | 6% |
| France | 2 | 6% |
| India | 1 | 3% |
| Italy | 1 | 3% |
| Indonesia | 1 | 3% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 12 | 39% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 19 | 61% |
| Scientists | 8 | 26% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 10% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley demographics
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 199 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 25 | 13% |
| Other | 23 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 10% |
| Researcher | 16 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 4% |
| Other | 29 | 15% |
| Unknown | 78 | 39% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 61 | 31% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 14 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 3% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 2% |
| Other | 22 | 11% |
| Unknown | 84 | 42% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 29 December 2020.
All research outputs
#2,294,457
of 34,575,175 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Thrombosis & Haemostasis
#497
of 5,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,039
of 465,243 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Thrombosis & Haemostasis
#19
of 108 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,575,175 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,387 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
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 465,243 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 108 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.