↓ Skip to main content

Viscoelastic Methods of Blood Clotting Assessment – A Multidisciplinary Review

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Medicine, September 2015
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)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
patent
2 patents

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Viscoelastic Methods of Blood Clotting Assessment – A Multidisciplinary Review
Published in
Frontiers in Medicine, September 2015
DOI 10.3389/fmed.2015.00062
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jan Benes, Jan Zatloukal, Jakub Kletecka

Abstract

Viscoelastic methods (VEM) made available the bedside assessment of blood clotting. Unlike standard laboratory tests, the results are based on the whole blood coagulation and are available in real time at a much faster turnaround time. In combination with our new knowledge about pathophysiology of the trauma-induced coagulopathy, the goal-oriented treatment protocols have been recently proposed for the initial management of bleeding in trauma victims. Additionally, the utility of viscoelastic monitoring devices has been proved even outside this setting in cardiosurgical patients or those undergoing liver transplantation. Many other situations were described in literature showing the potential use of bedside analysis of coagulation for the management of bleeding or critically ill patients. In the near future, we may expect further improvement in current bedside diagnostic tools enabling not only the assessment of secondary hemostasis but also the platelet aggregation. More sensitive assays for new anticoagulants are underway. Aim of this review is to offer the reader a multidisciplinary overview of VEM and their potential use in anesthesiology and critical care.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 1%
Czechia 1 1%
Unknown 83 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 19 22%
Researcher 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 9%
Student > Postgraduate 8 9%
Other 16 19%
Unknown 13 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 42 49%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 4 5%
Engineering 4 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 17 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 25 February 2021.
All research outputs
#5,175,979
of 25,208,845 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#1,468
of 7,060 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,226
of 274,955 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,208,845 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,060 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 274,955 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 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.