↓ Skip to main content

Venous Thromboembolism in Critical Illness and Trauma: Pediatric Perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Pediatrics, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
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.
Title
Venous Thromboembolism in Critical Illness and Trauma: Pediatric Perspectives
Published in
Frontiers in Pediatrics, March 2017
DOI 10.3389/fped.2017.00047
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ranjit S. Chima, Sheila J. Hanson

Abstract

Critically ill children and those sustaining severe traumatic injuries are at higher risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE) than other hospitalized children. Multiple factors including the need for central venous catheters, immobility, surgical procedures, malignancy, and dysregulated inflammatory state confer this increased risk. As well as being at higher risk of VTE, this population is frequently at an increased risk of bleeding, making the decision of prophylactic anticoagulation even more nuanced. The use of pharmacologic and mechanical prophylaxis remains variable in this high-risk cohort. VTE pharmacologic prophylaxis is an accepted practice in adult trauma and intensive care to prevent VTE development and associated morbidity, but it is not standardized in critically ill or injured children. Given the lack of pediatric specific guidelines, prevention strategies are variably extrapolated from the successful use of mechanical and pharmacologic prophylaxis in adults, despite the differences in developmental hemostasis and thrombosis risk between children and adults. Whether the burden of VTE can be reduced in the pediatric critically ill or injured population is not known given the lack of robust data. There are no trials in children showing efficacy of mechanical compression devices or prophylactic anticoagulation in reducing the rate of VTE. Risk stratification using clinical factors has been shown to identify those at highest risk for VTE and allows targeted prophylaxis. It remains unproven if such a strategy will mitigate the risk of VTE and its potential sequelae.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Student > Master 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 11 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Unknown 11 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 06 December 2022.
All research outputs
#19,336,995
of 23,936,280 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#3,711
of 6,694 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,702
of 311,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Pediatrics
#57
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,936,280 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,694 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.9. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% 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 311,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.