Title |
Inferior vena cava filters in cancer patients: to filter or not to filter
|
---|---|
Published in |
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, March 2011
|
DOI | 10.2147/tcrm.s17912 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Hikmat Abdel-Razeq, Asem Mansour, Yousef Ismael, Hazem Abdulelah |
Abstract |
Cancer and its treatment are recognized risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE); active cancer accounts for almost 20% of all newly diagnosed VTE. Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters are utilized to provide mechanical thromboprophylaxis to prevent pulmonary embolism (PE) or to avoid bleeding from systemic anticoagulation in high-risk situations. In this report, and utilizing a case study, we will address the appropriate utilization of such filters in cancer patients. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 28 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 17% |
Other | 4 | 14% |
Researcher | 4 | 14% |
Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 7% |
Other | 2 | 7% |
Unknown | 9 | 31% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 62% |
Neuroscience | 1 | 3% |
Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 9 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. 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 06 March 2014.
All research outputs
#4,100,242
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#196
of 1,323 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,932
of 120,084 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#3
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,323 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% 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 120,084 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 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.