↓ Skip to main content

Diet as prophylaxis and treatment for venous thromboembolism?

Overview of attention for article published in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, August 2010
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page
video
3 video uploaders

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
Title
Diet as prophylaxis and treatment for venous thromboembolism?
Published in
Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, August 2010
DOI 10.1186/1742-4682-7-31
Pubmed ID
Authors

David K Cundiff, Paul S Agutter, P Colm Malone, John C Pezzullo

Abstract

Both prophylaxis and treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE: deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary emboli (PE)) with anticoagulants are associated with significant risks of major and fatal hemorrhage. Anticoagulation treatment of VTE has been the standard of care in the USA since before 1962 when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration began requiring randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) showing efficacy, so efficacy trials were never required for FDA approval. In clinical trials of 'high VTE risk' surgical patients before the 1980s, anticoagulant prophylaxis was clearly beneficial (fatal pulmonary emboli (FPE) without anticoagulants = 0.99%, FPE with anticoagulants = 0.31%). However, observational studies and RCTs of 'high VTE risk' surgical patients from the 1980s until 2010 show that FPE deaths without anticoagulants are about one-fourth the rate that occurs during prophylaxis with anticoagulants (FPE without anticoagulants = 0.023%, FPE while receiving anticoagulant prophylaxis = 0.10%). Additionally, an FPE rate of about 0.012% (35/28,400) in patients receiving prophylactic anticoagulants can be attributed to 'rebound hypercoagulation' in the two months after stopping anticoagulants. Alternatives to anticoagulant prophylaxis should be explored.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Indonesia 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 52 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 24%
Student > Bachelor 10 19%
Student > Postgraduate 8 15%
Researcher 5 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 6%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 11 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 21 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Sports and Recreations 2 4%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 14 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 21 February 2020.
All research outputs
#12,063,854
of 18,432,973 outputs
Outputs from Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling
#163
of 278 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,698
of 226,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,432,973 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 278 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 226,712 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them