↓ Skip to main content

The safety and efficacy of the tetanus vaccine intramuscularly versus subcutaneously in anticoagulated patients: a randomized clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Family Practice, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
The safety and efficacy of the tetanus vaccine intramuscularly versus subcutaneously in anticoagulated patients: a randomized clinical trial
Published in
BMC Family Practice, August 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2296-15-147
Pubmed ID
Authors

Fernando I Lago-Deibe, Maria-Victoria Martín-Miguel, Carmen Velicia-Peñas, Isabel Rey Gómez-Serranillos, Manuela Fontanillo-Fontanillo

Abstract

In patients treated with oral anticoagulants, subcutaneous injections of anti-tetanus vaccine are usually recommended to reduce the risk of bleeding, although the effectiveness of the vaccine has only been proven for intramuscular injection. The objective of this study was to compare the safety and efficacy of intramuscular and subcutaneous injections of tetanus-diphtheria vaccine in patients treated with oral anticoagulants.

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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 4%
Unknown 22 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 5 22%
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Postgraduate 4 17%
Researcher 3 13%
Unspecified 3 13%
Other 4 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 17%
Unspecified 3 13%
Psychology 3 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 4%
Other 0 0%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 29 September 2014.
All research outputs
#3,374,424
of 8,165,722 outputs
Outputs from BMC Family Practice
#497
of 995 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,369
of 186,978 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Family Practice
#17
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,165,722 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 58th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 995 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 186,978 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.