↓ Skip to main content

Low-molecular-weight heparins or heparinoids versus standard unfractionated heparin for acute ischaemic stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 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
Low-molecular-weight heparins or heparinoids versus standard unfractionated heparin for acute ischaemic stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000119.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter AG Sandercock, Tze Shin Leong

Abstract

Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and heparinoids are anticoagulants that may have more powerful antithrombotic effects than standard unfractionated heparin (UFH) but a lower risk of bleeding complications. This is an update of the original Cochrane Review of these agents, first published in 2001 and last updated in 2008. To determine whether antithrombotic therapy with LMWHs or heparinoids is associated with a reduction in the proportion of people who are dead or dependent for activities in daily living compared with UFH. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched February 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL: the Cochrane Library Issue 1, 2017), MEDLINE (1966 to February 2017), and Embase (1980 to February 2017). We also searched trials registers to February 2017: ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, Stroke Trials Registry, ISRCTN Registry and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Unconfounded randomised trials comparing LMWH or heparinoids with standard UFH in people with acute ischaemic stroke, in which participants were recruited within 14 days of stroke onset. Two review authors independently chose studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and trial quality, extracted and analysed the data. Differences were resolved by discussion. We included nine trials involving 3137 participants. We did not identify any new trials for inclusion in this updated review. None of the studies reported data on the primary outcome in sufficient detail to enable analysis for the review. Overall, there was a moderate risk of bias in the included studies. Compared with UFH, there was no evidence of an effect of LMWH or heparinoids on death from all causes during the treatment period (96/1616 allocated LMWH/heparinoid versus 78/1486 allocated UFH; odds ratio (OR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.47; 8 trials, 3102 participants, low quality evidence). LMWH or heparinoid were associated with a significant reduction in deep vein thrombosis (DVT) compared with UFH (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.70, 7 trials, 2585 participants, low quality evidence). However, the number of the major clinical events such as pulmonary embolism (PE) and intracranial haemorrhage was too small to provide a reliable estimate of the effects. Treatment with a LMWH or heparinoid after acute ischaemic stroke appears to decrease the occurrence of DVT compared with standard UFH, but there are too few data to provide reliable information on their effects on other important outcomes, including functional outcome, death and intracranial haemorrhage.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 1%
France 1 1%
Unknown 75 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 17%
Researcher 12 16%
Student > Master 11 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 13%
Other 8 10%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 8 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 33 43%
Neuroscience 12 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 10%
Computer Science 2 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 12 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 26 April 2019.
All research outputs
#3,152,844
of 13,663,123 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,761
of 10,703 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,345
of 262,471 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#158
of 252 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,663,123 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,703 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% 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 262,471 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 252 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.