↓ Skip to main content

Laboratory assessment of rivaroxaban: a review

Overview of attention for article published in Thrombosis Journal, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#48 of 229)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

8 tweeters


114 Dimensions

Readers on

136 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.
Laboratory assessment of rivaroxaban: a review
Published in
Thrombosis Journal, January 2013
DOI 10.1186/1477-9560-11-11
Pubmed ID

Meyer Samama, Geneviève Contant, Theodore E Spiro, Elisabeth Perzborn, Lena Le Flem, Céline Guinet, Yves Gourmelin, Gabriele Rohde, Jean-Luc Martinoli


Research into new anticoagulants for preventing and treating thromboembolic disorders has focused on targeting single enzymes in the coagulation cascade, particularly Factor Xa and thrombin, inhibition of which greatly decreases thrombin generation. Based on the results of phase III clinical trials, rivaroxaban, a direct Factor Xa inhibitor, has been approved in many countries for the management of several thromboembolic disorders. Owing to its predictable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics, fixed-dose regimens are used without the need for routine coagulation monitoring. In situations where assessment of rivaroxaban exposure may be helpful, anti-Factor Xa chromogenic assays (in tandem with standard calibration curves generated with the use of rivaroxaban calibrators and controls) could be used. It is important to note that test results will be affected by the timing of blood sampling after rivaroxaban intake. In addition, the anti-Factor Xa method measures the drug concentration and not the intensity of the drug's anticoagulant activity, and a higher than expected rivaroxaban plasma level does not necessarily indicate an increased risk of bleeding complications. Therefore, clinicians need to consider test results in relation to the pharmacokinetics of rivaroxaban and other patient risk factors associated with bleeding.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Czechia 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 132 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 25 18%
Other 24 18%
Student > Master 14 10%
Student > Bachelor 14 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 10%
Other 33 24%
Unknown 12 9%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 70 51%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 7%
Chemistry 6 4%
Other 12 9%
Unknown 17 13%

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 06 May 2020.
All research outputs
of 18,141,016 outputs
Outputs from Thrombosis Journal
of 229 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 195,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Thrombosis Journal
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,141,016 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 229 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. 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 195,747 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them