↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Critical appraisal of dabigatran in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Blood Medicine, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
Title
Critical appraisal of dabigatran in the treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism
Published in
Journal of Blood Medicine, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/jbm.s54033
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kelechi C Ogbonna, Dave L Dixon

Abstract

To compare the safety and efficacy of dabigatran to warfarin for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a disease comprised of two conditions: deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. VTE is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide with an annual incidence estimated at 1-3 cases per 1,000 individuals. This incidence increases with age from 0.1 per 1,000 in adolescence to eight per 1,000 in those 80 years of age and older. As the proportion of patients 65 years of age and older expands, the number of patients presenting with VTE will also increase. Anticoagulation remains the cornerstone of VTE treatment. Traditionally, vitamin K antagonists have been used to minimize the risk of thrombus extension and for secondary prevention. Unpredictable pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, routine monitoring, drug-food and drug-drug interactions, and potentially severe adverse events have all been cited as barriers to optimal care. Dabigatran has been proposed as a suitable alternative to warfarin therapy in the treatment of VTE. Therefore, a critical appraisal of dabigatran's safety and efficacy is necessary to determine its role in therapy. Dabigatran remains an alternative to warfarin therapy for the treatment of VTE. However, dabigatran also has distinct disadvantages that warrant consideration. Clinicians must ensure that drug characteristics align with patient characteristics to optimize patient outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 17%
Student > Master 5 14%
Researcher 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 9%
Lecturer 2 6%
Other 8 23%
Unknown 8 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 54%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Neuroscience 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 11 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 23 July 2015.
All research outputs
#7,118,925
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Blood Medicine
#82
of 318 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#77,564
of 281,752 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Blood Medicine
#4
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 318 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 281,752 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
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 4 of them.