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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Differences and similarities between disseminated intravascular coagulation and thrombotic microangiopathy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Thrombosis Journal, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12959-018-0168-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hideo Wada, Takeshi Matsumoto, Kei Suzuki, Hiroshi Imai, Naoyuki Katayama, Toshiaki Iba, Masanori Matsumoto |
| Abstract |
Both disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) cause microvascular thrombosis associated with thrombocytopenia, bleeding tendency and organ failure. The frequency of DIC is higher than that of thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP). Many patients with TMA are diagnosed with DIC, but only about 15% of DIC patients are diagnosed with TMA. Hyperfibrinolysis is observed in most patients with DIC, and microangiopathic hemolytic anemia is observed in most patients with TMA. Markedly decreased ADAMTS13 activity, the presence of Shiga-toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) and abnormality of the complement system are useful for the diagnosis of TTP, STEC-hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS)and atypical HUS, respectively. However, there are no specific biomarkers for the diagnosis of DIC. Although DIC and TMA are similar appearances, all coagulation, fibrinolysis and platelet systems are activated in DIC, and only platelets are markedly activated in TMA. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 5 | 31% |
| Australia | 3 | 19% |
| Mexico | 2 | 13% |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 6% |
| Spain | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 9 | 56% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 19% |
| Scientists | 3 | 19% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 115 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 115 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 13 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 11 | 10% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 22 | 19% |
| Unknown | 43 | 37% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 46 | 40% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 4% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 11 | 10% |
| Unknown | 43 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 22 February 2023.
All research outputs
#3,533,247
of 25,163,621 outputs
Outputs from Thrombosis Journal
#53
of 404 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#65,863
of 332,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Thrombosis Journal
#1
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,163,621 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 404 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% 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 332,721 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 80% 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 all of them