↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for implementation of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical and surgical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
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 (84th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
81 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
196 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Interventions for implementation of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical and surgical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2013
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd008201.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Susan R Kahn, David R Morrison, Jacqueline M Cohen, Jessica Emed, Vicky Tagalakis, Andre Roussin, William Geerts

Abstract

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show that using thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients at risk for VTE is safe, effective and cost-effective. Despite this, prophylactic therapies for VTE are underutilized. System-wide interventions may be more effective to improve the use of VTE prophylaxis than relying on individual providers' prescribing behaviors.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 196 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 2%
Spain 2 1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 188 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 32 16%
Student > Master 28 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 12%
Student > Postgraduate 23 12%
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Other 59 30%
Unknown 7 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 105 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 25 13%
Social Sciences 10 5%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 4%
Other 25 13%
Unknown 14 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 27 August 2014.
All research outputs
#2,177,717
of 14,744,157 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#4,861
of 11,037 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,002
of 199,005 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#111
of 218 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,744,157 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,037 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% 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 199,005 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 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 218 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.