↓ Skip to main content

Anticoagulant treatment for subsegmental pulmonary embolism

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
30 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
84 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
Anticoagulant treatment for subsegmental pulmonary embolism
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, January 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd010222.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hugo HB Yoo, Thais HAT Queluz, Regina El Dib

Abstract

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common cause of death, accounting for 50,000 to 200,000 deaths annually. It is the third most common cause of mortality among the cardiovascular diseases, after coronary artery disease and stroke.The advent of multi-detector computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) has allowed better assessment of PE regarding visualisation of the peripheral pulmonary arteries, increasing its rate of diagnosis. More cases of peripheral PEs, such as isolated subsegmental PE (SSPE) and incidental PE, have thereby been identified. These two conditions are usually found in patients with few or none of the classic PE symptoms such as haemoptysis or pleuritic pain, acute dyspnoea or circulatory collapse. However, in patients with reduced cardio-pulmonary (C/P) reserve the classic PE symptoms can be found with isolated SSPEs. Incidental SSPE is found casually in asymptomatic patients, usually by diagnostic imaging performed for other reasons (for example routine CT for cancer staging in oncologic patients).Traditionally, all PEs are anticoagulated in a similar manner independent of the location, number and size of the thrombi. It has been suggested that many patients with SSPE may be treated without benefit, increasing adverse events by possible unnecessary use of anticoagulants.Patients with isolated SSPE or incidental PE may have a more benign clinical presentation compared with those with proximal PEs. However, the clinical significance in patients and their prognosis have to be studied to evaluate whether anticoagulation therapy is required.This review is an update of a Cochrane systematic review first published in 2014. To assess the effectiveness and safety of anticoagulation therapy versus no intervention in patients with isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (SSPE) or incidental SSPE. The Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (last searched December 2015) and CENTRAL (2015, Issue 11). MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS and clinical trials databases were also searched. Randomised controlled trials of anticoagulation therapy versus no intervention in patients with SSPE or incidental SSPE. Two review authors inspected all citations to ensure reliable selection. We planned for two review authors to independently extract data and to assess the methodological quality of identified trials using the criteria recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. No studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. There is no randomised controlled trial evidence for the effectiveness and safety of anticoagulation therapy versus no intervention in patients with isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (SSPE) or incidental SSPE, and therefore we can not draw any conclusions. Well-conducted research is required before informed practice decisions can be made.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 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 84 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 82 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 21%
Researcher 14 17%
Other 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 10 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 11%
Other 21 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 62 74%
Unspecified 11 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Other 5 6%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. 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 05 September 2018.
All research outputs
#553,488
of 13,616,341 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,690
of 10,679 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,535
of 362,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#45
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,616,341 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,679 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% 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 362,970 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.