↓ Skip to main content

Recombinant factor VIIa for the prevention and treatment of bleeding in patients without haemophilia

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (77th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
8 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
195 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
160 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
Recombinant factor VIIa for the prevention and treatment of bleeding in patients without haemophilia
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, March 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005011.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ewurabena Simpson, Yulia Lin, Simon Stanworth, Janet Birchall, Carolyn Doree, Chris Hyde

Abstract

Recombinant factor VIIa (rFVIIa) is licensed for use in patients with haemophilia and inhibitory allo-antibodies and for prophylaxis and treatment of patients with congenital factor VII deficiency. It is also used for off-license indications to prevent bleeding in operations where blood loss is likely to be high, and/or to stop bleeding that is proving difficult to control by other means. This is the third version of the 2007 Cochrane review on the use of recombinant factor VIIa for the prevention and treatment of bleeding in patients without haemophilia, and has been updated to incorporate recent trial data.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Ecuador 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 154 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 26 16%
Student > Bachelor 23 14%
Student > Master 21 13%
Other 15 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 9%
Other 39 24%
Unknown 22 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 87 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 16 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 5 3%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 15 9%
Unknown 23 14%

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 02 November 2020.
All research outputs
#4,425,518
of 18,623,929 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,590
of 11,833 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#30,482
of 135,818 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#52
of 114 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,623,929 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 76th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,833 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.1. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 135,818 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 114 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.