↓ Skip to main content

Unfractionated heparin versus low molecular weight heparin for avoiding heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia in postoperative patients

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (76th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 tweeter
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
73 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
Unfractionated heparin versus low molecular weight heparin for avoiding heparin‐induced thrombocytopenia in postoperative patients
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2012
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007557.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Junqueira DR, Perini E, Penholati RR, Carvalho MG, Junqueira, Daniela RG, Perini, Edson, Penholati, Raphael RM, Carvalho, Maria G

Abstract

Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an adverse drug reaction presenting as a prothrombotic disorder related to antibody-mediated platelet activation. It is a poorly understood paradoxical immune reaction resulting in thrombin generation in vivo, which leads to a hypercoagulable state and the potential to initiate venous or arterial thrombosis. A number of factors are thought to influence the incidence of HIT including the type and preparation of heparin (unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH)) and the heparin-exposed patient population, with the postoperative patient population presenting a higher risk.Although LMWH has largely replaced UFH as a front-line therapy, there is evidence supporting a lack of superiority of LMWH compared with UFH regarding prevention of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism following surgery, and similar frequencies of bleeding have been described with LMWH and UFH. The decision as to which of these two preparations of heparin to use may thus be influenced by adverse reactions such as HIT. We therefore sought to determine the relative impact of UFH and LMWH specifically on HIT in postoperative patients receiving thromboembolism prophylaxis.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter 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 73 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Egypt 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 67 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 20 27%
Student > Doctoral Student 17 23%
Researcher 15 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 19%
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Other 32 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 69 95%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 9 12%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 7 10%
Unspecified 7 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Other 13 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 20 March 2018.
All research outputs
#3,164,058
of 12,680,099 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#6,039
of 10,395 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#29,212
of 126,626 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#39
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,680,099 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,395 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.2. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 126,626 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 76% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 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 56% of its contemporaries.