↓ Skip to main content

Anticoagulation therapy versus placebo for pulmonary hypertension

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
99 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
Anticoagulation therapy versus placebo for pulmonary hypertension
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010695.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ifeanyi R Ezedunukwe, Hilary Enuh, Jay Nfonoyim, Collins U Enuh

Abstract

Elevation of pulmonary pressure is no longer a rare disease, given its multifactorial etiology. However data on the actual incidence of this condition are still limited, and controversies regarding its management are ongoing. Use of anticoagulation in the management of pulmonary hypertension is based on the presence of in situ thrombosis in the patient with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) and on retrospective evidence of clinical benefit. Current practice is dependent mostly on expert opinion and individualised experience. The real benefit of its use in different types of pulmonary hypertension is still debatable, and the therapeutic target of the international normalised ratio (INR) among treated patients remains inconclusive. Adverse outcomes associated with anticoagulants are significant and can include fatal haemorrhage. Justification for the use of this intervention requires critical evaluation of randomised controlled trials.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 99 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
France 1 1%
Unknown 96 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 18%
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 12%
Student > Bachelor 10 10%
Student > Postgraduate 9 9%
Other 21 21%
Unknown 15 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 14%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 11 11%
Unknown 20 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 07 December 2019.
All research outputs
#4,280,700
of 15,184,339 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,011
of 11,142 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,589
of 191,032 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#135
of 206 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,184,339 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,142 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.8. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% 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 191,032 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 206 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.