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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Prophylaxis for venous thromboembolic disease in pregnancy and the early postnatal period
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd001689.pub3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Emily Bain, Agnes Wilson, Rebecca Tooher, Simon Gates, Lucy‐Jane Davis, Philippa Middleton |
| Abstract |
Venous thromboembolism (VTE), although rare, is a major cause of maternal mortality and morbidity, and methods of prophylaxis are therefore often used for women considered to be at risk. This may include women who have given birth by caesarean section, those with a personal or family history of VTE and women with inherited or acquired thrombophilias (conditions that predispose people to thrombosis). Many methods of prophylaxis carry risks of adverse effects, and as the risk of VTE is often low, it is possible that the benefits of thromboprophylaxis may be outweighed by harms. Guidelines for clinical practice have been based on expert opinion rather than high-quality evidence from randomised trials. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 3 | 33% |
| Spain | 3 | 33% |
| Japan | 1 | 11% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 89% |
| Scientists | 1 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 339 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | <1% |
| Switzerland | 1 | <1% |
| France | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Philippines | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 329 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 52 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 47 | 14% |
| Researcher | 39 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 38 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 22 | 6% |
| Other | 71 | 21% |
| Unknown | 70 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 156 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 32 | 9% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 3% |
| Psychology | 10 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 2% |
| Other | 29 | 9% |
| Unknown | 94 | 28% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 May 2018.
All research outputs
#2,733,322
of 25,457,297 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#5,326
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,012
of 329,574 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#99
of 209 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,297 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% 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 329,574 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 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 209 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 52% of its contemporaries.