↓ Skip to main content

Thrombolysis (different doses, routes of administration and agents) for acute ischaemic stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (74th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
117 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
Thrombolysis (different doses, routes of administration and agents) for acute ischaemic stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000514.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joanna M Wardlaw, Panos Koumellis, Ming Liu

Abstract

Stroke is a leading cause of death and disability world wide. Thrombolysis with recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rt-PA) is licensed for treatment of acute ischaemic stroke in the early hours after symptom onset. It has been shown in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the 2009 Cochrane review of thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke to reduce dependency but at the increased risk of intracranial haemorrhage. Methods to reduce the risk of haemorrhage while retaining or enhancing the benefit could increase the use of thrombolytic treatment. While most available information comes from RCTs of intravenous rt-PA at 0.9 mg/kg, it is possible that other doses, drugs and other routes of administration might increase benefit and reduce the hazard.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Russia 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 112 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 19%
Student > Bachelor 19 16%
Student > Master 17 15%
Student > Postgraduate 12 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 9%
Other 30 26%
Unknown 6 5%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 56%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 6%
Neuroscience 6 5%
Social Sciences 5 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Other 11 9%
Unknown 17 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 09 March 2020.
All research outputs
#897,909
of 14,509,999 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,687
of 10,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,112
of 184,490 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#26
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,509,999 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 10,989 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 184,490 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 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.