| 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 W Mandernach, Rebecca J 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. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 4 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 4 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 98 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 | 95 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 20 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 12 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 7 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 7% |
| Other | 24 | 24% |
| Unknown | 20 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 42 | 43% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 13 | 13% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 3 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 8% |
| Unknown | 26 | 27% |
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
#15,879,822
of 25,584,565 outputs
Outputs from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#695
of 1,308 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,674
of 276,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
#24
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,584,565 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,308 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% 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 276,761 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.