| Title |
Management of disseminated intravascular coagulation: current insights on antithrombin and thrombomodulin treatments
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Open access emergency medicine OAEM, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.2147/oaem.s135909 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mineji Hayakawa |
| Abstract |
Sepsis and septic shock are frequently complicated by disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), which decreases the survival rate of patients with sepsis. In the past, large international randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using physiological anticoagulants for sepsis-induced DIC were not performed; however, RCTs have been conducted for sepsis and/or septic shock. In these trials, physiological anticoagulants did not show any beneficial effects compared with placebo for the treatment of sepsis and/or septic shock. In Japan, DIC treatments using antithrombin (AT) and/or recombinant human soluble thrombomodulin (rhTM) are common for patients with sepsis-induced DIC. Recently, large propensity score analyses demonstrated that AT and rhTM improved survival in patients with sepsis-induced DIC. Furthermore, post hoc analyses and meta-analyses that selected patients with sepsis-induced DIC from the previous large international RCTs indicated that physiological anticoagulants improved survival without increasing the associated sepsis-induced DIC bleeding. DIC treatments, such as AT and rhTM, may demonstrate beneficial effects when they are targeted at patients with sepsis-induced DIC only. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 42 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 14% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 19% |
| Unknown | 16 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 14 | 33% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 7% |
| Unknown | 15 | 36% |
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 24 January 2018.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Open access emergency medicine OAEM
#211
of 231 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#384,359
of 444,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Open access emergency medicine OAEM
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 231 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 444,941 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.