Patients with cancer are at significantly higher risk of developing, and dying from, venous thromboembolism (VTE). The CLOT trial demonstrated superiority of low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) over warfarin for recurrent VTE and established LMWH as the standard of care for cancer-associated VTE. However, with patients living longer with metastatic cancer, long-term injections are associated with significant cost and injection fatigue. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are an attractive alternative for treatment of cancer-associated VTE. Meta-analysis of subgroup data of patients with cancer from the large DOAC VTE trials and small non-randomized studies have found no difference in VTE recurrence or major bleeding. With this limited evidence, clinicians may decide to switch their patients who require long-term anticoagulation from LMWH to a DOAC. This requires careful consideration of the interplay between the patient's cancer and treatment course, with their underlying comorbidities.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
5
9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
2
4%
Nursing and Health Professions
2
4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences
1
2%
Other
2
4%
Unknown
18
34%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 19 September 2017.
All research outputs
#15,871,835
of 26,542,140 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Medicine
#2,948
of 7,649 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#172,648
of 330,015 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Medicine
#32
of 66 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,542,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,649 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% 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 330,015 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 66 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 51% of its contemporaries.
