↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of different laboratory tests in the evaluation of hemorrhagic risk of patients using rivaroxaban in the critical care setting: diagnostic accuracy study

Overview of attention for article published in Thrombosis Journal, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
Comparison of different laboratory tests in the evaluation of hemorrhagic risk of patients using rivaroxaban in the critical care setting: diagnostic accuracy study
Published in
Thrombosis Journal, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12959-017-0140-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marjorie Paris Colombini, Priscilla Bento Matos Cruz Derogis, Valdir Fernandes de Aranda, João Carlos de Campos Guerra, Nelson Hamerschlak, Cristóvão Luis Pitangueiras Mangueira

Abstract

Rivaroxaban is a direct oral anticoagulant designed to dispense with the necessity of laboratory monitoring. However, monitoring rivaroxaban levels is necessary in certain clinical conditions, especially in the critical care setting. This is a diagnostic accuracy study evaluating sensitivity and specificity of prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and Dilute Russell viper venom time (dRVVT), to evaluate the hemorrhagic risk in patients taking rivaroxaban. The study used a convenience sample of 40 clinically stable patients using rivaroxaban to treat deep vein thrombosis or atrial fibrillation admitted in a private hospital in Brazil, compared to a group of 60 healthy controls. The samples from patients were collected two hours after the use of the medication (peak) and two hours before the next dose (trough). The correlation with the plasmatic concentration measured by anti-FXa assay was higher for PT and dRVVTS. The PT and aPTT tests presented higher specificity, while dRVVT was 100% sensible. There was a strong correlation between the tests and the plasma concentration of the drug. Additionally, our results demonstrated the potential use of dRVVT as a screening test in the emergency room and the need of a second test to improve specificity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 16%
Other 3 12%
Librarian 1 4%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 2 8%
Unknown 8 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 28%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 11 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 August 2017.
All research outputs
#15,473,755
of 22,994,508 outputs
Outputs from Thrombosis Journal
#215
of 327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,781
of 316,572 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Thrombosis Journal
#5
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,994,508 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 327 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 316,572 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.