↓ Skip to main content

Thrombophilia testing for prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
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 (86th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
16 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
Thrombophilia testing for prevention of recurrent venous thromboembolism
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007069.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Danny M Cohn, Fleur Vansenne, Corianne A de Borgie, Saskia Middeldorp

Abstract

Tests for thrombophilia are being performed on a large scale in people after venous thromboembolism (VTE) even though the benefits of testing are still subject to debate. The most important benefit would be a reduction in the risk of recurrent VTE due to the use of additional prophylactic measures. This is an update of a review first published in 2009.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 19%
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Student > Postgraduate 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 11 23%
Unknown 6 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 53%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 11%
Computer Science 2 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 8 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 25 May 2014.
All research outputs
#1,695,973
of 13,588,841 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,401
of 10,646 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#26,127
of 188,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#98
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,588,841 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,646 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% 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 188,143 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 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 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.