↓ Skip to main content

Causes and consequences of coagulation activation in sepsis: an evolutionary medicine perspective

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
30 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
48 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
Causes and consequences of coagulation activation in sepsis: an evolutionary medicine perspective
Published in
BMC Medicine, May 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0327-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Maiara Marx Luz Fiusa, Marco Antonio Carvalho-Filho, Joyce M Annichino-Bizzacchi, Erich V De Paula

Abstract

Coagulation and innate immunity have been linked together for at least 450 million years of evolution. Sepsis, one of the world's leading causes of death, is probably the condition in which this evolutionary link is more evident. However, the biological and the clinical relevance of this association have only recently gained the attention of the scientific community. During sepsis, the host response to a pathogen is invariably associated with coagulation activation. For several years, coagulation activation has been solely regarded as a mechanism of tissue damage, a concept that led to several clinical trials of anticoagulant agents for sepsis. More recently, this paradigm has been challenged by the failure of these clinical trials, and by a growing bulk of evidence supporting the concept that coagulation activation is beneficial for pathogen clearance. In this article we discuss recent basic and clinical data that point to a more balanced view of the detrimental and beneficial consequences of coagulation activation in sepsis. Reappraisal of the association between coagulation and immune activation from an evolutionary medicine perspective offers a unique opportunity to gain new insights about the pathogenesis of sepsis, paving the way to more successful approaches in both basic and clinical research in this field.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Italy 1 2%
Unknown 46 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 23%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Postgraduate 5 10%
Researcher 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Other 11 23%
Unknown 7 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 50%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 17%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 9 19%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 17 October 2015.
All research outputs
#2,953,155
of 6,278,272 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#1,272
of 1,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#90,449
of 159,995 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#82
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 6,278,272 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,408 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 25.6. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 159,995 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.