↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Signals of bleeding among direct-acting oral anticoagulant users compared to those among warfarin users: analyses of the post-marketing FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database, 2010–2015

Overview of attention for article published in Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
14 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
Title
Signals of bleeding among direct-acting oral anticoagulant users compared to those among warfarin users: analyses of the post-marketing FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database, 2010–2015
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, May 2018
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s161148
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thamir M Alshammari, Sondus I Ata, Mansour Adam Mahmoud, Tariq M Alhawassi, Hisham S Aljadhey

Abstract

To analyze and compare the signals of bleeding from the use of direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database over 5 years. Reports of bleeding and of events with related terms submitted to the FAERS between October 2010 and September 2015 were retrieved and then analyzed using the reporting odds ratio (ROR). The signals of bleeding associated with DOAC use were compared with the signals of bleeding associated with warfarin use utilizing the FAERS databases. A total of 1,518 reports linked dabigatran to bleeding, accounting for 2.7% of all dabigatran-related reports, whereas 93 reports linked rivaroxaban to bleeding, which accounted for 4.4% of all rivaroxaban-related reports. The concurrent proportion of bleeding-related reports for warfarin was 3.6%, with a total of 654 reports. The association of bleeding and of related terms with the use of all three medications was significant, albeit with different degrees of association. The ROR was 12.30 (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.65-12.97) for dabigatran, 15.61 (95% CI 14.42-16.90) for warfarin, and 18.86 (95% CI 15.31-23.23) for rivaroxaban. The signals of bleeding varied among the DOACs, and the bleeding signal was higher for rivaroxaban and lower for dabigatran compared to that for warfarin.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 14 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 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Student > Postgraduate 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 2 10%
Student > Master 2 10%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 7 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 8 38%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 5%
Unknown 8 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 10 October 2018.
All research outputs
#3,574,534
of 25,477,125 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#174
of 1,324 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,343
of 339,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#8
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,477,125 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,324 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 339,457 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 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.