| Title |
Prevention and treatment of venous thromboembolism during HRT: current perspectives
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of General Medicine, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ijgm.s46310 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hannelore Rott |
| Abstract |
Many large trials in the past 15 years have proven an increased risk of vascular complications in women using oral, mostly non-bioidentical, hormone therapy. The risk of vascular complications depends on the route of administration (oral versus transdermal), age, duration of administration, and type of hormones (bioidentical versus non-bioidentical). Acquired and/or hereditary thrombophilias (eg, factor V Leiden, prothrombin mutation G20210A, and others) lead to a further increase of risk for venous thromboembolism, stroke, or myocardial infarction. Therefore, bioidentical hormone therapy via the transdermal route seems to be the safest opportunity for hormone replacement therapy, although large trials for bioidentical hormone therapy are needed. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Canada | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 30 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 7 | 23% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
| Researcher | 2 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 16% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 29% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 13% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 6% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 9 | 29% |
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 28 February 2021.
All research outputs
#5,361,987
of 25,816,430 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of General Medicine
#284
of 1,668 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,769
of 249,570 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of General Medicine
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,816,430 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 1,668 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.3. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 249,570 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 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 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.