↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

New oral anticoagulants: their advantages and disadvantages compared with vitamin K antagonists in the prevention and treatment of patients with thromboembolic events

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#35 of 1,257)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
272 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
488 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
New oral anticoagulants: their advantages and disadvantages compared with vitamin K antagonists in the prevention and treatment of patients with thromboembolic events
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s84210
Pubmed ID
Authors

Agon Mekaj, Ymer Mekaj, Shkelzen Duci, Ermira Miftari

Abstract

Despite the discovery and application of many parenteral (unfractionated and low-molecular-weight heparins) and oral anticoagulant vitamin K antagonist (VKA) drugs, the prevention and treatment of venous and arterial thrombotic phenomena remain major medical challenges. Furthermore, VKAs are the only oral anticoagulants used during the past 60 years. The main objective of this study is to present recent data on non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) and to analyze their advantages and disadvantages compared with those of VKAs based on a large number of recent studies. NOACs are novel direct-acting medications that are selective for one specific coagulation factor, either thrombin (IIa) or activated factor X (Xa). Several NOACs, such as dabigatran (a direct inhibitor of FIIa) and rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban (direct inhibitors of factor Xa), have been used for at least 5 years but possibly 10 years. Unlike traditional VKAs, which prevent the coagulation process by suppressing the synthesis of vitamin K-dependent factors, NOACs directly inhibit key proteases (factors IIa and Xa). The important indications of these drugs are the prevention and treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolisms, and the prevention of atherothrombotic events in the heart and brain of patients with acute coronary syndrome and atrial fibrillation. They are not fixed, and dose-various strengths are available. Most studies have reported that more advantages than disadvantages for NOACs when compared with VKAs, with the most important advantages of NOACs including safety issues (ie, a lower incidence of major bleeding), convenience of use, minor drug and food interactions, a wide therapeutic window, and no need for laboratory monitoring. Nonetheless, there are some conditions for which VKAs remain the drug of choice. Based on the available data, we can conclude that NOACs have greater advantages and fewer disadvantages compared with VKAs. New studies are required to further assess the efficacy of NOACs.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 488 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Slovenia 1 <1%
Unknown 486 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 104 21%
Student > Master 77 16%
Researcher 44 9%
Student > Postgraduate 43 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 40 8%
Other 89 18%
Unknown 91 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 171 35%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 87 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 26 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 20 4%
Other 57 12%
Unknown 107 22%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. 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 08 November 2022.
All research outputs
#929,702
of 22,489,892 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#35
of 1,257 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,523
of 252,327 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#2
of 38 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,489,892 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,257 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 252,327 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 38 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.