↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Endovascular iliocaval reconstruction for the treatment of iliocaval thrombosis: From imaging to intervention

Overview of attention for article published in Vascular Medicine, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#32 of 1,157)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
56 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Endovascular iliocaval reconstruction for the treatment of iliocaval thrombosis: From imaging to intervention
Published in
Vascular Medicine, March 2018
DOI 10.1177/1358863x18754695
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anthony N Hage, Ravi N Srinivasa, Steven D Abramowitz, Kyle J Cooper, Minhaj S Khaja, Geoff D Barnes, Jeffrey Forris Beecham Chick

Abstract

Thrombosis of the inferior vena cava and iliac veins, known as iliocaval thrombosis, is a common cause of significant morbidity. Patients with chronic iliocaval obstruction often present with life-limiting occlusive symptoms secondary to recurrent lower extremity deep venous thrombosis, swelling, pain, venous stasis ulcers, or phlegmasia. Endovascular iliocaval reconstruction is a technically successful procedure that results in favorable clinical outcomes and stent patency rates with few complications and is often able to relieve debilitating symptoms in affected patients. This review presents an approach to endovascular iliocaval stent reconstruction in patients suffering from chronic iliocaval thrombosis, including background, patient selection, timing of intervention, procedural steps, technical considerations, patient follow-up, and a brief review of outcomes. Schematic illustrations and clinical cases outlining iliocaval stent reconstruction and crossing chronic venous occlusions have been provided.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 56 X users 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 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 11%
Other 3 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Researcher 2 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 5 19%
Unknown 10 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 33%
Sports and Recreations 2 7%
Physics and Astronomy 1 4%
Philosophy 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 12 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 June 2020.
All research outputs
#1,126,707
of 25,641,627 outputs
Outputs from Vascular Medicine
#32
of 1,157 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,018
of 347,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vascular Medicine
#2
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,641,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,157 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 347,872 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.