You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Thromboprophylaxis patterns and determinants in critically ill patients: a multicenter audit
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Critical Care, April 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/cc13844 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
François Lauzier, John Muscedere, Éric Deland, Demetrios Jim Kutsogiannis, Michael Jacka, Diane Heels-Ansdell, Mark Crowther, Rodrigo Cartin-Ceba, Michael J Cox, Nicole Zytaruk, Denise Foster, Tasnim Sinuff, France Clarke, Patrica Thompson, Steven Hanna, Deborah Cook, the Co-operative Network of Critical Care Knowledge Translation for Thromboprophylaxis (CONECCKT-T) Investigators and the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group |
| Abstract |
Heparin is safe and prevents venous thromboembolism in critical illness. We aimed to determine the guideline concordance for thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients and its predictors, and to analyze factors associated with the use of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), as it may be associated with a lower risk of pulmonary embolism and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia without increasing the bleeding risk. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 13% |
| Canada | 1 | 13% |
| Greece | 1 | 13% |
| Unknown | 5 | 63% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 4 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 2 | 25% |
| Scientists | 1 | 13% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Denmark | 1 | 1% |
| Egypt | 1 | 1% |
| Brazil | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 77 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 14 | 18% |
| Researcher | 11 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 9 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 8% |
| Other | 25 | 31% |
| Unknown | 8 | 10% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 54 | 68% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 4% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 4% |
| Unknown | 14 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 03 May 2014.
All research outputs
#7,355,485
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#4,041
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#66,551
of 241,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#72
of 172 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 241,811 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 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 172 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 56% of its contemporaries.