↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Apixaban for the prophylaxis and treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: an evidence-based review

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

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
Title
Apixaban for the prophylaxis and treatment of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism: an evidence-based review
Published in
Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, August 2015
DOI 10.2147/tcrm.s68010
Pubmed ID
Authors

Molly Mandernach, Rebecca Beyth, Anita Rajasekhar

Abstract

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) results in significant morbidity and mortality. The prevention and treatment of VTE is managed with anticoagulant therapy, historically parenteral anticoagulants such as unfractionated heparin, low molecular weight heparin, and fondaparinux, and oral vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin. In the last few years, several target-specific oral anticoagulants have been developed, including the direct thrombin inhibitor dabigatran and anti-Xa inhibitors rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban. The target-specific oral anticoagulants have proven to be noninferior to vitamin K antagonists and heparins in the prevention and treatment of VTE. This review will focus on the pharmacology, clinical trial data, and laboratory assessment of apixaban. Moreover, perioperative management, use in special populations, and management of bleeding complications in patients taking apixaban for the prevention and treatment of VTE will also be discussed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
Denmark 1 1%
Slovenia 1 1%
Unknown 84 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 18 21%
Student > Master 11 13%
Student > Postgraduate 7 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 8%
Other 22 25%
Unknown 15 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 41 47%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 12 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Social Sciences 2 2%
Other 6 7%
Unknown 20 23%

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 28 August 2015.
All research outputs
#7,046,732
of 12,485,238 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#436
of 922 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#101,253
of 239,478 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#27
of 64 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,485,238 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 922 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% 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 239,478 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 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 64 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.