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 |
Venous thromboembolism in Latin America: a review and guide to diagnosis and treatment for primary care
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinics, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.6061/clinics/2016(01)07 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jose Manuel Ceresetto |
| Abstract |
There are various region-specific challenges to the diagnosis and effective treatment of venous thromboembolism in Latin America. Clear guidance for physicians and patient education could improve adherence to existing guidelines. This review examines available information on the burden of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis in Latin America and the regional issues surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis. Potential barriers to appropriate care, as well as treatment options and limitations on their use, are discussed. Finally, an algorithmic approach to the diagnosis and treatment of venous thromboembolism in ambulatory patients is proposed and care pathways for patients with pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis are outlined for primary care providers in Latin America. |
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 82 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 82 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 15% |
| Researcher | 10 | 12% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 10% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Master | 6 | 7% |
| Other | 13 | 16% |
| Unknown | 26 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 34% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 7 | 9% |
| Unknown | 30 | 37% |
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 February 2016.
All research outputs
#22,758,309
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinics
#1,001
of 1,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#341,806
of 399,674 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinics
#11
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 399,674 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.