↓ Skip to main content

Venous thromboembolism in the elderly: efficacy and safety of non-VKA oral anticoagulants

Overview of attention for article published in Thrombosis Journal, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#13 of 176)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 tweeters
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 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
Venous thromboembolism in the elderly: efficacy and safety of non-VKA oral anticoagulants
Published in
Thrombosis Journal, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1477-9560-12-21
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vincent Geldhof, Christophe Vandenbriele, Peter Verhamme, Thomas Vanassche

Abstract

Increasing age and renal impairment are risk factors for venous thrombosis but also for anticoagulant-induced bleeding. In large-scale phase III trials, non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs) were at least as effective and safe for the treatment of acute venous thromboembolism as warfarin. Here, we review the efficacy and safety of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban in the subgroups of elderly patients (≥75 years) and patients with impaired renal function (creatinine clearance ≤50 ml/min). In all phase III trials, the efficacy of NOACs in the prevention of recurrent VTE was conserved both in the elderly subgroup and in the subgroup with impaired renal function. In a meta-analysis of the pooled results, NOACs reduced VTE recurrence compared with warfarin in elderly patients. In elderly patients and patients with impaired renal function, the safety of NOACs was in line with the results of the overall study. NOACs may offer an effective, safer and more convenient alternative for VKAs also in the elderly. However, the efficacy/safety profile of NOACs in the aged population needs to be confirmed in real-life.

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 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Netherlands 1 2%
France 1 2%
Unknown 47 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 24%
Student > Master 10 20%
Other 9 18%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 4%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 4 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 76%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Unknown 8 16%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. 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 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,523,262
of 14,556,971 outputs
Outputs from Thrombosis Journal
#13
of 176 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#24,835
of 213,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Thrombosis Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,556,971 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 176 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% 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 213,378 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 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them