↓ Skip to main content

Heparin versus placebo for non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2014
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 (92nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
7 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
14 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 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
Heparin versus placebo for non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2014
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003462.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carlos A Andrade-Castellanos, Luis E Colunga-Lozano, Netzahualpilli Delgado-Figueroa, Kirk Magee

Abstract

Non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS) represent a spectrum of disease including unstable angina and non-ST segment myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). Despite treatment with aspirin, beta-blockers and nitroglycerin, unstable angina/NSTEMI is still associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Although evidence suggests that low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is more efficacious compared to unfractionated heparin (UFH), there is limited data to support the role of heparins as a drug class in the treatment of NSTEACS. This is an update of a review last published in 2008.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Colombia 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 73 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 16%
Researcher 9 12%
Student > Master 9 12%
Student > Postgraduate 8 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Other 22 29%
Unknown 10 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 11%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Unspecified 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 7 9%
Unknown 14 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 20. 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 26 February 2020.
All research outputs
#973,645
of 15,124,181 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,814
of 11,111 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#13,936
of 188,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#46
of 199 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,124,181 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,111 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 188,208 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 199 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.