↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Practical guidance on the use of laboratory testing in the management of bleeding in patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants

Overview of attention for article published in Vascular Health and Risk Management, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Practical guidance on the use of laboratory testing in the management of bleeding in patients receiving direct oral anticoagulants
Published in
Vascular Health and Risk Management, December 2017
DOI 10.2147/vhrm.s126265
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hugo ten Cate, Yvonne MC Henskens, Marcus D Lancé

Abstract

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have demonstrated a favorable benefit-risk profile in several thromboembolic disorders and are increasingly used in routine clinical practice. A number of real-world studies on DOACs are ongoing, and data published so far have shown broadly similar outcomes to those demonstrated in the respective phase III trials. Despite their beneficial attributes, bleeding risk (as with any other anticoagulants) is often a concern for physicians when prescribing DOACs, particularly in elderly patients, those with significant comorbidities, and other high-risk patient populations. Although the absence of routine coagulation monitoring is an advantage of the DOACs, measuring their anticoagulant effect and/or plasma drug levels may be helpful in certain clinical scenarios to help patient management and improve outcomes. In this paper, practical guidance and recommendations are provided for clinical situations in which the test results may aid clinical decision-making, including patients with life-threatening bleeding events, patients without bleeding but with test results indicating a risk of bleeding, for those patients with a suspected thromboembolism while receiving a DOAC, or prior to patients undergoing elective or urgent surgical procedures. Finally, appropriate monitoring of the DOACs could be of substantial benefit to patients, and there is a high potential for development in this area in the future.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users 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 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Other 10 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 8%
Researcher 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 16 23%
Unknown 20 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 24 34%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 6%
Unspecified 2 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 23 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 14 March 2018.
All research outputs
#16,868,837
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#499
of 785 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#267,257
of 446,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Vascular Health and Risk Management
#6
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 785 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 446,259 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.