↓ Skip to main content

Differences and similarities between disseminated intravascular coagulation and thrombotic microangiopathy

Overview of attention for article published in Thrombosis Journal, July 2018
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 (#16 of 167)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
25 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
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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 25 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Unspecified 5 20%
Other 4 16%
Researcher 3 12%
Student > Master 3 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 12%
Other 7 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 56%
Unspecified 6 24%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 July 2018.
All research outputs
#1,931,537
of 13,260,816 outputs
Outputs from Thrombosis Journal
#16
of 167 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,393
of 266,745 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Thrombosis Journal
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,260,816 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 167 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 266,745 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 77% 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