↓ 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 5% 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 (85th percentile)

Citations

dimensions_citation
72 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
161 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 18 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 161 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 2 1%
Japan 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Mexico 1 <1%
Unknown 154 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 30 19%
Student > Bachelor 21 13%
Researcher 20 12%
Student > Postgraduate 19 12%
Other 17 11%
Other 54 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 108 67%
Unspecified 21 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 12 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. 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 April 2018.
All research outputs
#610,366
of 12,802,184 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,064
of 10,430 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,888
of 147,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#14
of 96 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,802,184 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 10,430 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 147,330 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 85% of its contemporaries.