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 |
A case of EDTA-dependent pseudothrombocytopenia: simple recognition of an underdiagnosed and misleading phenomenon
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Clinical Pathology, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6890-14-19 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Michael Nagler, Peter Keller, Daniel Siegrist, Lorenzo Alberio |
| Abstract |
EDTA-dependent pseudothrombocytopenia (EDTA-PTCP) is a common laboratory phenomenon with a prevalence ranging from 0.1-2% in hospitalized patients to 15-17% in outpatients evaluated for isolated thrombocytopenia. Despite its harmlessness, EDTA-PTCP frequently leads to time-consuming, costly and even invasive diagnostic investigations. EDTA-PTCP is often overlooked because blood smears are not evaluated visually in routine practice and histograms as well as warning flags of hematology analyzers are not interpreted correctly. Nonetheless, EDTA-PTCP may be diagnosed easily even by general practitioners without any experiences in blood film examinations. This is the first report illustrating the typical patterns of a platelet (PLT) and white blood cell (WBC) histograms of hematology analyzers. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 States | 4 | 80% |
| Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 5 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 48 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 11 | 22% |
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 14% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Researcher | 3 | 6% |
| Other | 5 | 10% |
| Unknown | 16 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 37% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 10% |
| Immunology and Microbiology | 4 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 6% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 6% |
| Unknown | 15 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 22 May 2020.
All research outputs
#6,247,869
of 22,851,489 outputs
Outputs from BMC Clinical Pathology
#21
of 116 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,873
of 228,003 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Clinical Pathology
#1
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,851,489 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 116 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 228,003 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 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them