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.
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Video-assisted Thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) lobectomy for lung cancer does not induce a procoagulant state
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Thrombosis Journal, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12959-017-0152-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Decker Christensen, Henrik Vad, Søren Pedersen, Peter B. Licht, Mads Nybo, Kåre Hornbech, Nora Elisabeth Zois, Anne-Mette Hvas |
| Abstract |
Changes in the coagulation system in patients undergoing surgery for lung cancer have been sparsely investigated and the impact of the surgical trauma on the coagulation system is largely unknown in these patients. An increased knowledge could potentially improve the thromboprophylaxis regimes. The aim of this study was to assess the coagulation profile evoked in patients undergoing curative surgery by Video-Assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) lobectomy for primary lung cancer. Thirty-one patients diagnosed with primary lung cancer undergoing VATS lobectomy were prospectively included. The coagulation profile was assessed preoperatively and in the first two days postoperatively using a wide range of standard coagulation tests, dynamic whole blood coagulation measured by rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM®) and thrombin generation evaluated by calibrated automated thrombography. Patients did not receive thromboprophylactic treatment. Data was analyzed using repeated measures one-way ANOVA. The standard coagulation parameters displayed only subtle changes after surgery and the ROTEM® and thrombin generation results remained largely unchanged. Patients undergoing VATS lobectomy are normocoagulable in the preoperative state and a VATS lobectomy does not significantly influence the coagulation. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT01741506) and at EudraCTno. 2012-002409-23. Registered December 2012. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 17% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 11% |
| Researcher | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 3 | 17% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 67% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 23 December 2017.
All research outputs
#5,768,470
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from Thrombosis Journal
#96
of 327 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#113,774
of 440,645 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Thrombosis Journal
#2
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 327 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% 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 440,645 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 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.