↓ Skip to main content

Vitamin K antagonists versus antiplatelet therapy after transient ischaemic attack or minor ischaemic stroke of presumed arterial origin

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Vitamin K antagonists versus antiplatelet therapy after transient ischaemic attack or minor ischaemic stroke of presumed arterial origin
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001342.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Els LLM De Schryver, Ale Algra, L Jaap Kappelle, Jan van Gijn, Peter J Koudstaal

Abstract

People who have had a transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or non-disabling ischaemic stroke have an annual risk of major vascular events of between 4% and 11%. Aspirin reduces this risk by 20% at most. Secondary prevention trials after myocardial infarction indicate that treatment with vitamin K antagonists is associated with a risk reduction approximately twice that of treatment with antiplatelet therapy.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
Colombia 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 58 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 16%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Other 18 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 71%
Unspecified 7 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 2 3%

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 01 April 2015.
All research outputs
#3,585,479
of 13,375,725 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,481
of 10,571 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#72,351
of 297,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#190
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,375,725 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,571 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 297,282 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 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.