↓ Skip to main content

Thromboprophylaxis for trauma patients

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
94 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 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
Thromboprophylaxis for trauma patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008303.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luis M Barrera, Pablo Perel, Katharine Ker, Roberto Cirocchi, Eriberto Farinella, Carlos Hernando Morales Uribe

Abstract

Trauma is a leading causes of death and disability in young people. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a principal cause of death. Trauma patients are at high risk of deep vein thrombosis (DVT). The incidence varies according to the method used to measure the DVT and the location of the thrombosis. Due to prolonged rest and coagulation abnormalities, trauma patients are at increased risk of thrombus formation. Thromboprohylaxis, either mechanical or pharmacological, may decrease mortality and morbidity in trauma patients who survive beyond the first day in hospital, by decreasing the risk of VTE in this population.A previous systematic review did not find evidence of effectiveness for either pharmacological or mechanical interventions. However, this systematic review was conducted 10 years ago and most of the included studies were of poor quality. Since then new trials have been conducted. Although current guidelines recommend the use of thromboprophylaxis in trauma patients, there has not been a comprehensive and updated systematic review since the one published.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 2 1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 173 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 17%
Student > Bachelor 27 15%
Researcher 24 13%
Other 20 11%
Student > Postgraduate 19 10%
Other 41 23%
Unknown 20 11%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 117 65%
Nursing and Health Professions 15 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 7 4%
Unknown 30 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. 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 08 July 2019.
All research outputs
#710,682
of 14,091,558 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,189
of 10,843 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,206
of 150,565 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#13
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,091,558 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,843 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 150,565 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 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 96 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.